Remmy 700 Wont shoot!! GRRRR

I kinda went through the same ordeal with a ADL 700 in 270 win but it was all stock without a butchered barrel....what worked for me was ....first, free floating the barrel (most older wooden stocked 700's had a pressure point)....2nd, bedding the action....and 3rd, finding a load it liked.
It is now a consistant 3shot 1MOA rifle that shoots a very predictable pattern, the first cold bore shot is dead on, the second roughly about 1/2 inch higher and the third slightly lower than the first...it does the same pattern over and over when starting from a cold bore.
IMO, the OP should free float the barrel and bed the action before trying to find a load the rifle likes.....good luck and have fun!
 
If all else fails, post it for sale on the EE for more than you originally paid for it, and be sure to mention "will shoot 1/3 MOA all day"...

Just kidding...some good advice in these posts above. Ammo and barrel are good places to start.
 
Pretty sure most Rem 700s have a pressure point built in at the end of the forearm...even my heavy barrel varminter had this.

Process of elimination, start with the easy stuff. Free floating is simple to achieve. If it does the trick, you're home free. If not, but groups don't get worse, leave it that way and move on.

Going through an elaborate regime of removing all copper fouling is something you can do, too. Research best method/product and give it a try.

If the barrel has been shortened, was it properly crowned? A target crown is simple stuff for a gun smith, and will enhance your rifle even if it doesn't solve this problem. Any rifle meant to be a shooter should automatically have this done.

Here's another one: The magazine on a Remington 700 free floats between the action and the bottom metal. It is very easy...too damn easy...to reassemble this model incorrectly and have the magazine binding between the action and the bottom metal. You should be able to move the magazine about 1/16th of an inch up and down with a finger tip, if properly installed. If not, the magazine is very likely installed wrong and is exerting pressure on the action via the screws at each end of the bottom metal. Make sure the magazine stays in place within the form for it on the bottom metal when reassembling, which can be tricky with some guns. (IMHO, this design sucks and is long over due for an upgrade from Remington, along with the crappy bottom metal.)

If none of these issues, all of them basic and simple, aren't addressed first, glass bedding isn't going to fix anything. That said, glass bedding is always a worthwhile step when building a shooter.

FWIW.
 
He for sure meant the 700 cause that's all he worked on for the most part, he is a die hard 700 fan. I will start by free floating the barrel tonight, and shoot it tomorrow. And the crown on it looks good to me, not knicked or anything. I will also find a good bore solvent and try giving her a good wipe again and see if that helps. Will keep everyone posted.
 
hawk-i said:
If you're hunting in tight quarters that benifit from a short barrel, IMHO there are way better choices than a flat shooting longrange gun like a 7MM RM.
Click to expand...

23" is by no means in the silly zone for a magnum, many run 24" from the factory anyhow. No discerable difference between a 23" 7mm and a 26" 7mm. In fact, it would take a very special and extreme circumstance to see an in the field difference between a 26" and a 23" 7mm Mag. Using Remingtons own barrel length numbers from their 2003 catalog where they included a ballistics by the inch section, a 23" 7mm Mag will only be about 30fps slower than a 24", and only 90fps slower than a 26". You might notice it barks more from the shooter's perspective, but effect in nearly any hunting situation will not change. This long barrels are a must on magnums stuff is ideas based on old conventions, not facts, even a 22" magnum still works and makes sense in certain situations, and will still outperform a 22" non-magnum by similar margin to a long barreled magnum vs non-magnum.
 
Ardent said:
23" is by no means in the silly zone for a magnum, many run 24" from the factory anyhow. No discerable difference between a 23" 7mm and a 26" 7mm. In fact, it would take a very special and extreme circumstance to see an in the field difference between a 26" and a 23" 7mm Mag. Using Remingtons own barrel length numbers from their 2003 catalog where they included a ballistics by the inch section, a 23" 7mm Mag will only be about 30fps slower than a 24", and only 90fps slower than a 26". You might notice it barks more from the shooter's perspective, but effect in nearly any hunting situation will not change. This long barrels are a must on magnums stuff is ideas based on old conventions, not facts, even a 22" magnum still works and makes sense in certain situations, and will still outperform a 22" non-magnum by similar margin to a long barreled magnum vs non-magnum.
Click to expand...

Ardent, what you say may very will be true but I also believe it would take an extreme circumstance to see an in field difference between a 22" 280 remington and a 23" 7 RM. The 7 RM comes into its own with a longer barrel at longer ranges, does it not?
 
Suputin said:
How old is this rifle and how many rounds does it have down the pipe? A 7mm Mag will not last forever. If it is an older rifle I'd suspect it has seen a fair bit of use and may have a burned throat.

The only way to know for sure is to measure the distance to the lands or get it borescoped.
Click to expand...

^^^ did i miss your reply? how much of an 'old girl' are you talking? ...used? ...i had two remingtons that went wonky on me: one had the cheap sps stock on it, and the other i burned out, 7mm with 2500 rounds through it ...there's no pressure point on remingtons re stocks ...if you can't get moa after floating then something is drastically wrong ...all mine have shot much better free floated (half a dozen over 40 years) ...first get a bore sight down the throat, then float your barrel, after than start jimmying the bedding, after that use it for a crow bar
 
Last edited:
hawk-i said:
Ardent, what you say may very will be true but I also believe it would take an extreme circumstance to see an in field difference between a 22" 280 remington and a 23" 7 RM. The 7 RM comes into its own with a longer barrel at longer ranges, does it not?
Click to expand...

The 7mm Mag will push a 160gr TSX to 3100fps out of a 24", so safe to assume 3070fps from a 23" going by Remington's numbers. That substantially out paces a .280, even giving the .280 the same length barrel. Magnums stay magnums and always hold their edge over standard cartridges regardless of barrel length, they don't "lose" in shorter barrels in any meaningful amount more than standard cartridges, but they certainly become more obnoxious to use for noise. It's been a assumed fact for so long it's widely viewed as fact magnums need long barrels. They benefit from them, but do not need them and still stay well ahead of standard chamberings even in shorter barrels.
 
Bed 'er proper, check and re-cut crown if needed, then try some reduced loads to change the harmonics of the barrel during firing.
IE: For a 175 gr. Grand Slam, use a load that sits right around 2500 fps. with the powder of your choice. Yeah, ya got to experiment a bit, but it pays off.

Dialing loads down from factory levels along with careful bullet selection has always shrunk groups for me without any handicap in performance on game I've hunted....and meat loss is nicely reduced bigtime.;)
 
Ardent said:
The 7mm Mag will push a 160gr TSX to 3100fps out of a 24", so safe to assume 3070fps from a 23" going by Remington's numbers. That substantially out paces a .280, even giving the .280 the same length barrel. Magnums stay magnums and always hold their edge over standard cartridges regardless of barrel length, they don't "lose" in shorter barrels in any meaningful amount more than standard cartridges, but they certainly become more obnoxious to use for noise. It's been a assumed fact for so long it's widely viewed as fact magnums need long barrels. They benefit from them, but do not need them and still stay well ahead of standard chamberings even in shorter barrels.
Click to expand...

My point is why take a great long range rifle (26" barreled 7 RM) and cut it down 23 inches to make it a quicker handling close quarter gun when a standard non magnum 22" or shorter barreled cartridge will effectively perform the same at shorter ranges. I doubt a moose, deer, or elk will act any differently if shot at 200yds distance with a 160 TSX from either a 22" 280 rem or 23" 7 RM.
If I lived in Sask. and was hunting deer, elk, or whatever on the wide open fields and wide draw coulees a 26" 7 RM makes sense... A 23" 7 RM not so much so.
If I lived in Sask. and was hunting thick bush a 18.5 inch 308 win. makes sense... a 23" 7 RM not so much so.
By taking a 7 RM and shortening it to 23" you've reduced its long range effectiveness and still don't have a short quick handling thick bush rifle...like I said before a don't see why someone would want to do this.
If this rifle origianlly came with a 24" barrel I doubt 1 inch less would make much of a handling difference, however I would be more inclined to believe the orignal owner had an accuracy problem and as a last ditch effort decided to try a cut and crown. For the OP's benifit I hope this isn't the case but to me a 23 inch 7 RM is suspicious given the fact he can't get it to shoot.
 
I had a winchester m70 that was throwing bullets all over the place...I was sure the screws joining the stock to the action were tight because I torqued them down as per spec...but they had loosened off! As soon a I torqued again the rifle shot very well. Have you checked your action screws? Tried different torque settings?
 
hawk-i said:
My point is why take a great long range rifle (26" barreled 7 RM) and cut it down 23 inches to make it a quicker handling close quarter gun when a standard non magnum 22" or shorter barreled cartridge will effectively perform the same at shorter ranges. I doubt a moose, deer, or elk will act any differently if shot at 200yds distance with a 160 TSX from either a 22" 280 rem or 23" 7 RM.
If I lived in Sask. and was hunting deer, elk, or whatever on the wide open fields and wide draw coulees a 26" 7 RM makes sense... A 23" 7 RM not so much so.
If I lived in Sask. and was hunting thick bush a 18.5 inch 308 win. makes sense... a 23" 7 RM not so much so.
By taking a 7 RM and shortening it to 23" you've reduced its long range effectiveness and still don't have a short quick handling thick bush rifle...like I said before a don't see why someone would want to do this.
If this rifle origianlly came with a 24" barrel I doubt 1 inch less would make much of a handling difference, however I would be more inclined to believe the orignal owner had an accuracy problem and as a last ditch effort decided to try a cut and crown. For the OP's benifit I hope this isn't the case but to me a 23 inch 7 RM is suspicious given the fact he can't get it to shoot.
Click to expand...

The difference is substantial in any equal barrel length, and you will notice it. Useful range for bullet opening speed will be significantly further with the 7mm Mag even from a short barrel, drop and drift will be less, and blast and recoil will be more. We all, and I truly include myself here, justify our line of thinking to support cartridges or combinations we like more. For me it's the various virtues, in my eyes, of the .375.

The .280 will never be a 7mm Mag, which will always be markedly superior in any barrel length compared. It will perform better on game, in wind, and so forth. It will also bark and kick from short barrels, and the often lighter rifles associated with them. It's up to the shooter to decide what qualities he likes, and I'm with you, actually I use a 7x57 and just dropped this year's Moose with it. But the 7mm Mag, even from a short-for-magnum barrel, hands down trumps our preferences on ballistics, and on game effect when the ranges get out there and the velocities drop off for optimum bullet performance. So yes, a 23" 7mm Mag is a notable step up from a 22" .280, same for a 22" 7mm Mag, and I can see uses for those in our mountains.
 
Holy cluster $&&@ here. First, the barrel was cut, so is the crown ok. If the crown isn't ok it'll never group.
Remington's do leave the factory with pressure points ala Mike Walker from eons ago.
Free floating and bedding gets you to a mean standard to work from. Reduce the influences and start from there.
The barrel length will have SFA to do with the accuracy. In fact of matter, shorter = stiffer so all things being equal more accurate anyway.
I'd run a 7 mag at 23" anyday if that's how it came and it shot well. It's influence on it's long range "ability" will not be impacted and it would shoot at short and long range just fine. Stop picking at mites that don't matter.....

Again for the OP, check the crown, and work your way back from there. Make sure you clean the chit outta it or everything else will be moot as well.
 
Is the general consensus that 7mm r3m mag is actually a magnum?.... I hate the "magnum" designation but that aside, I have never thought of the 7mm rem mag as a contender. ...

Fyi, still think op just needs a free float....
 
Is the general consensus that 7mm r3m mag is actually a magnum?.... I hate the "magnum" designation but that aside, I have never thought of the 7mm rem mag as a contender. ...

Fyi, still think op just needs a free float....
 
Superbrad said:
Is the general consensus that 7mm r3m mag is actually a magnum?.... I hate the "magnum" designation but that aside, I have never thought of the 7mm rem mag as a contender. ...

Fyi, still think op just needs a free float....
Click to expand...

Doesn't kick like one, but is grossly overbore, produces speeds well beyond the standard cartridges, and along with the .264 Win would have to say indeed it is.
 
Purely a range thing, they reach farther and reliably expand tough bullets considerably further, and much as I extol and subscribe to the moderate velocities and heavy bullets school, the fast cartridges can produce sensational bang flops. I've culled beside fast magnums and watching a dozen hits from different rifles, to my chagrin I have to admit there is something to high velocity. I don't enjoy the meat damage however and am happy with my 7x57 and .375.
 
BongoBob said:
I had a winchester m70 that was throwing bullets all over the place...I was sure the screws joining the stock to the action were tight because I torqued them down as per spec...but they had loosened off! As soon a I torqued again the rifle shot very well. Have you checked your action screws? Tried different torque settings?
Click to expand...

True and the standard a number of years ago and still a good starting point is 40 inch pounds on the front and 25 on the rear.

As to barrel length, this shortening of the barrels on Browning and Winchester rifle was the bases for building the BOSS system. Perhaps it would not shoot in the original configuration and shortening was considered as an option . . . Oops . . . didn't work!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom