It aint a model 70 but a step in the right direction
- Thread starter Slimbo
- Start date
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
The 700 is pretty hard to improve upon but you need to introduce some improvements over the years to keep people interested. So you invent solutions to problems that don't exist to keep the attention of new buyers who don't know better.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
I had a barrel only from a M48 Mauser - Yugo, I think? It had a "safety breech" - nose of bolt went into a rim at the rear of the barrel, so the back end of the chamber was actually in a recess. I believe that was the "3 rings of steel" - patented in Germany by Paul Mauser in 1890's?? Do not think the idea was actually used on many military orders, though...
EDIT: read some more on it - not "3" rings like a Remington - the various Mausers with that feature did not have a recessed bolt face - but, by removing those spacer nubs on each side of the ejector slot on the bolt face, the bolt face was then closer to the chamber, compared to Mauser 98's without the "safety breech". Essentially allowed slightly more of the cartridge case to enter into the chamber.
Last edited:
Not a troll post but an honest question:
The double ejectors seems like a pretty novel approach to the m16 style extractor. Isn't that a pretty common modification on target rifles based on the m16? Don't some factory bolts have a similar extractor?
The double ejectors seems like a pretty novel approach to the m16 style extractor. Isn't that a pretty common modification on target rifles based on the m16? Don't some factory bolts have a similar extractor?
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
One can argue the merits or detriments of the installation of an extractor that cuts into the ring of steel around the bolt head of a M-700 bolt, but many, if not all, push feed rifles across a broad range of manufacturers, use a single plunger ejector. Some eject more energetically than others, but most, including the M-700's, are reliable. I think the only advantage to be argued in favor of the duel plunger is that of redundancy, rather than the need for more energetic ejection due to a larger extractor.
If for example a hunter was afield for an extended period of time in a marine environment, it is not inconceivable that a plunger that was depressed on a round over that time without relief, could freeze into the bolt face. Have I ever witnessed this with a M-700? No, but I have seen it happen to the plunger and spring which keeps the extractor of an 870 shotgun in place. The extractor was subsequently lost, and this happened with a Marine Magnum not a blue steel gun. I was asked to get this thing back into service, so I submerged the bolt in diesel fuel until a new plunger, spring, and extractor arrived in the mail. Even then I had to rap the bolt with the wood handle of a hammer before it released. I then gave the bolt a few cycles through my ultrasonic cleaner, swabbing out the recess after each cycle, followed by a hot oil bath. The original spring and plunger looked no worse for wear, but I swapped them out anyway, keeping the originals for spares. Given sufficient neglect, almost any failure is possible.
It's got nothing to do with reliability...700's eject great.
It's got to do with the angle of ejection changing with the installation of a M16 style extractor.
The addition of the second ejector brings the ejection angle back to where the spent case will reliably eject even with large tube scopes with big windage turrets.
It's got to do with the angle of ejection changing with the installation of a M16 style extractor.
The addition of the second ejector brings the ejection angle back to where the spent case will reliably eject even with large tube scopes with big windage turrets.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Does this reflect theory or reality? The reason I ask is that for a long time now, custom rifle builders have installed SAKO and AR-15 style extractors on M-700 bolts, without the need of modifying the position of the plunger in order to maintain a suitable angle of ejection. You might be on to something though if the Remington Custom Shop folks positioned of the new extractor so as not to line up the bolt lug recess in the receiver, when the bolt handle was turned down. If this was done, either moving the position of the plunger ejector, or adding a second one, would be necessary to maintain the correct angle of ejection.
Actually, I have seen numerous Remingtons with aftermarket extractor which did have problem with the ejection angle. It would be possible to produce a Remington bolt with a non-rotating extractor and even make it a CRF but I don't expect to ever see it from Remington.
I have two 700's modified with M16/Sako style extractors. But both of mine were/are boomers, so no large scopes on them. Can't say I've noticed any huge difference in ejection compared to the other 700's I have. - dan
this is a cut and paste from one such site that does dual ejector mods ...
Problem Statement:
Ejection with a factory bolt M700 fitted with an AR15/M16 extractor has always been plagued with an annoying problem. The issue is the ejection angle of the case body as it pivots on the extractor claw and attempts to leave the loading port of the action.
The factory ejector's clock position combined with the altered position of the claw causes the case to exit with a high trajectory that approaches 1 o'clock. (viewed as a RH shooter perspective behind the rifle) When combined with modern optics using large external "tree stump" windage turrets, it creates a very frustrating problem where the cartridge case contacts the scope turret and back flips right back into the loading port.
Some aftermarket bolts solve this by moving the ejector position to 9 o'clock. This restores the case to a near horizontal ejection angle. Unfortunately, this isn't really a viable option to try and alter on a factory bolt.
Solution:
What we have done is add an additional ejector. We mirror it “north of the equator” on the bolt face. Doing so restores the ejection angle so that cases will again clear the turrets. The net result is a reliably extracting gun that will "punt" the case low enough to clear the optics. Trimming the spring length on ejector pins is the last step as it reduces the "blast radius" of spent cases.
Problem Statement:
Ejection with a factory bolt M700 fitted with an AR15/M16 extractor has always been plagued with an annoying problem. The issue is the ejection angle of the case body as it pivots on the extractor claw and attempts to leave the loading port of the action.
The factory ejector's clock position combined with the altered position of the claw causes the case to exit with a high trajectory that approaches 1 o'clock. (viewed as a RH shooter perspective behind the rifle) When combined with modern optics using large external "tree stump" windage turrets, it creates a very frustrating problem where the cartridge case contacts the scope turret and back flips right back into the loading port.
Some aftermarket bolts solve this by moving the ejector position to 9 o'clock. This restores the case to a near horizontal ejection angle. Unfortunately, this isn't really a viable option to try and alter on a factory bolt.
Solution:
What we have done is add an additional ejector. We mirror it “north of the equator” on the bolt face. Doing so restores the ejection angle so that cases will again clear the turrets. The net result is a reliably extracting gun that will "punt" the case low enough to clear the optics. Trimming the spring length on ejector pins is the last step as it reduces the "blast radius" of spent cases.
I think the vast majority of extractor modifications were done with no regard to safety and a lot of regard to the money they were making... but the ejection angle does change and flips the case considerably higher into the scope body - more so with 30 mm tubes.
We make the 700 design better by adding larger extractors, improving ejection systems and angles, flattening the bottom of the receiver, simplifying triggers, beefing up and relocating bolt stops, adding integral lugs etc. And yet they are somehow a better mousetrap than the Model 70? But thank all that is good for their three rings of steel. If it wasn’t true, no one would believe it.
Always has been the most problematic extractor going .I think we all have a drawer in are parts bin with 700 extractors some rived some not .Almost impossible to find the non riveted ones these days.Stuck plungers too as even the stainless guns the bolt is cromemoly thus prone to rust.I think post #35 covered it.
I think the reason for people putting in m16 and sako extractors was from extractor failure with the flimsy snap ring that Remington uses.
Not something I am willing to bet my life on with a DGR but you have to like them at the bench or the deer gun as they are easy to make accurate .
I think the reason for people putting in m16 and sako extractors was from extractor failure with the flimsy snap ring that Remington uses.
Not something I am willing to bet my life on with a DGR but you have to like them at the bench or the deer gun as they are easy to make accurate .
I hope so. A personal favorite. - dan
- Location
- Southern Vancouver Island
There's always the wankers out there that have little knowledge of careful loading methods combined with stratospheric performance ideas they hadthat led to many goof-ups and numerous injuries. Learn early and learn it right. Something that be totally lost in our general education system.
