







this is the essential difference. My 'Classic' is a 350 Rem Mag. Which I put in a Mcmillan stock that was almost identical in design. The Classic stocks are elegant imo and recoil seems to be better handled as it is directed in a straighter line to the shoulder. Another factor that also differentiated the annual 'Classic' issues was the selection of a calibre that was not normally chambered in the regular 700 series ie 350 rem mag, 35 whelan, 220 swift, 6.5x55 etc. They are nice rifles imo. I jumped quick when the 350 Rem Mag was released and never regretted the decision!Take a good look at your "Classic" stock and compare it to non classic stocks... that is the biggest indicator of differences.
How are the 'classics' identified? Is the name engraved in the action or barrel? Or do you just go by the finish on the stock and the year of manufacture?
Would like to find a Classic LA stock as I have a Classic 6.5x55 barrel kicking around.....Harold
Did the early Classics have sights? Seems to me that most I saw did not except the 35Whelen and maybe the 350RM. Maybe more.I just picked up a very nice Classic in 243.
I've owned Classics in the 220 Swift, 6.5 Swede, 270 Win, 300 Weatherby, 7mm Weatherby and 35 Whelen.
The shop I got the 243 from was adamant that it was a BDL in a Classic stock (which of course it actually is) because "they never made the Classic in 243"
Lots of guys are not aware that the Classic was a regular production gun from '78 until '81 when the one chambering per year began.
This 243 is a very early Classic with a date code of Dec '77
Did the early Classics have sights? Seems to me that most I saw did not except the 35Whelen and maybe the 350RM. Maybe more.




























