Remington 700P for hunting?


PDA






newman
June 19, 2006, 12:16 AM
I'm looking for a new hunting rifle in 308 and I've recently been recomended a Remington 700P or the LTR.

I currently use an Browning A-bolt Composite Stalker in 270WSM which is about 6.5 lbs before the scope. I like the short action and light weight so my main concern is how the Remington will compare in the field. I know its accurate but how does it feel when its not on a rest? Does the front weight cause it to be difficult to hold on target?

The specs for the 700P show it weighs 9 lbs and the LTR weighs 7.5 lbs. I dont know if this will be a big enough difference in the field since they are still short barrels.

Here is the other thing, I looked at the Model 700 CDL and although on paper it is the same weight as the 700P LTR they feel much lighter. I'm guessing thats because the weight on the 700P LTR is all up front. Anyhow, I'm looking for some feedback and options.

Thanks in advance.

If you enjoyed reading about "Remington 700P for hunting?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
30-06 lover
June 19, 2006, 01:03 AM
I like a gun with a lot of weight in the front...It makes it easier to balance the gun because it keeps my shaking hands and waving arms steady. The weight will become tiresome after carrying it for a few hours, but when you do get the chance to shoot at what your are going for, the weight will be your friend.
-Mike

YodaVader
June 19, 2006, 12:15 PM
The specs for the 700P show it weighs 9 lbs and the LTR weighs 7.5 lbs. I dont know if this will be a big enough difference in the field since they are still short barrels

Actually there is a 6" difference in barrel length between the 700P and the 700LTR.

I have owned the 700P in .308 and currently the 700LTR (.223) For hunting or carrying in the field I would choose the 20" LTR (in .308). A much more compact rifle and far easier to shoot offhand (at least for me). The long barreled 700P is not something I want to carry around for any length of time.

Even thought they list only a 1.5lb difference , handling both rifles is dramatically different.

Mantis
June 19, 2006, 12:20 PM
I've used a 700VS (basically the same as the "P") for years with no trouble at all, and we hike up and down mountains. It may be a bit heavier than some other rifles, but it's nice to know that it's going to hit where you aim.

JNewell
June 19, 2006, 01:59 PM
7 1/2 pounds is in the range of many regular "sporter" models and makes a viable field rifle. The regular P model is a viable varmint rifle but too heavy for general field use (IMO/YMMV). The LTR gives up a little velocity but is otherwise quite easy to handle in the field IMO and is extremely accurate - more accurate than necessary for field (i.e., excluding varmint-type) use.

mljdeckard
June 19, 2006, 02:20 PM
I have carried a 700VS, a PSS, and an M1A in .308 hunting deer. I was never concerned with the carry weight, I suppose I'm just conditioned to it.

Through a bizarre turn of events, my father wound up with two identical S&W model 1500s in .270, medium weight, and he gave me one of them. The felt recoil is more than those other rifles, but how many shots do I plan on firing in one day? I can hit 2-3" at 100 yards, which is fine for the hunting I do. With some comprehensive practice, I've found I shoot it just as well at 800 yards as I do those other rifles. (The truth is, I really need to tighten up my ability more before I hit the limits of any of these rifles.)

I decided that if I am perched on a stationary elevated position, a heavy, long range rifle is fine. But since lately I find myself mostly roaming through sagebrush, I'm glad to have a lighter rifle. Although my background and inclination is for tactical rifles, I have found I can carry a vanilla hunting rifle with the rest of the goyim and it does everything I need.

newman
June 19, 2006, 03:09 PM
Thanks for the replies.

Part of the reason the 700P and LTR were originally recomended to me was that I wanted to also be able to practice long range shooting with it. I'm told the 700P and LTR would be good for 500 to 800 yard targets.

Will the LTR in .308 be more accurate than a Remington CDL or a Browning A-bolt in .308?

I've only analyzed the accuracy of my A-bolt 270WSM at 100yards but it holds 3/4" groups out of the box so I'm guessing its pretty good at longer ranges.

EShell
June 19, 2006, 04:14 PM
I agree that the LTR would make a better hunting rifle. I have both a 700P and an LTR.

There really is no accuracy difference, both models usually shoot very well. My LTR shoots 1/2" to 5/8" 5 shot hundred yard groups with Federal GMM 175 BTHPs. I can't comment on the OEM PSS accuracy, it was heavily customized and shoots bugholes. In a .308 at hunting ranges, there is no practical ballistic difference between the 20" barrel and the 24/26" P/PSS barrels.

The P model is really not that similar to the VS model. The "P" has a very large, rounded, non-tapered forend that doesn't handle as well for offhand shooting and field positions - more a bipod gun, vs the "VS" model which also has a wide forend, but one that is tapered top to bottom and side to side and is more suited to grasping in field positions.

The other thing is the grip. The P model has a very pronounced grip swell that you kind of either like it or hate it. It feels good for long prone sessions, but is awkward for rapid acquisition and doesn't fit my hand well in offhand. The LTR is quite slim through the wrist and while it is a little light (and muzzle-light) for long range precision work, it shoots well enough for any hunting situation.

The slim forend of the LTR, coupled with the 20" barrel, makes that rifle a good, fast handling woods gun compared to the P/PSS. The P/PSS with it's beefier, parallel-sided stock, longer barrel and semi-vertical grip make it an excellent bipod or slung stock.

Gewehr98
June 19, 2006, 06:29 PM
The only difference is the metal finish, and the stock. After hearing about it, I confirmed it with a phone call to Remington. A poorly-kept secret, if ever there was.

I've used my 700PSS for deer hunting, when I'm sitting in my stand at the base of an old pine tree. While the 26" barrel does make the gun a bit nose-heavy, the Kevlar composite stock does a nice job of keeping the overall weight down, assuming you're not packing 3 or 4 pounds of optics on the rifle.

Part of the reason the 700P and LTR were originally recomended to me was that I wanted to also be able to practice long range shooting with it. I'm told the 700P and LTR would be good for 500 to 800 yard targets.


Don't forget, that missing 6" of barrel will change things with respect to .308 Winchester velocities and the subsequent trajectory. 800 yards for a shorty LTR may be right there on the ragged edge for that barrel and cartridge combination.

JNewell
June 19, 2006, 09:06 PM
My LTR shoots 1/2" to 5/8" 5 shot hundred yard groups with Federal GMM 175 BTHPs.

Interesting - mine prefers the 168 gr GMM. Have you tried the 168 gr load for comparison?

mljdeckard
June 19, 2006, 09:53 PM
For .308, I shoot exclusively 168 bthp, I had heard that the Marine Corp team switched to 175's for their shooting team a while ago. Maybe the extra weight is giving a touch more stability.

When I think I have maximized the accuracy potential in the 168, I'll start getting creative with other loads.

Jeff
June 19, 2006, 10:12 PM
I just put together my .308 LTR package. With everything on, it probably weighs b/w 9 1/3 - 9 1/2 lbs. That includes a Harris bipod. I also want a hunting/target range "hybrid."

I think the gun feels a little heavier than what it actually is overall, because it is so compact.

It aims real nice, but I haven't shot it yet.

ProficientRifleman
June 19, 2006, 11:39 PM
I had a PSS ten years ago that I ordered from Keisler's. It was a TACK DRIVER! I should say it was a tack driver with my loads. I used M118 Special Ball in it to start with and I wasn't impressed. But that was the ammo, not the rifle. With my loads at 100 yds, it would shoot 'em all into one hole. I would recomend it to anyone who wanted to use it for hunting.

If you can't hit it with a 700PSS, you can't hit it!

mljdeckard
June 20, 2006, 10:49 AM
I absolutely agree. I have had a few rifles in 700 VS configuration, including a PSS, the only trouble I ever had was a jammed extractor from a fragment of brass (I'm still not sure how it happened,) and I had the house gunsmith at Impact lighen the triggers to 3 lbs.

I also submit, that if you have one of these rifles, and you know it is fine, but you can't hit the mark, get out your .22 and start over again. (I have done this myself.)

EShell
June 21, 2006, 11:43 AM
Quote:
My LTR shoots 1/2" to 5/8" 5 shot hundred yard groups with Federal GMM 175 BTHPs.

Interesting - mine prefers the 168 gr GMM. Have you tried the 168 gr load for comparison?
__________________
TFL Alum
No I haven't tried the 168's at all, they may shoot fine or better. I did try the Black Hills 175s, which my particular LTR doesn't like at all.

Most of my shooting is to 1,000 or 1,100 yards, and the 168s are documented to go trans-sonic and destabilize by then. The 175s will carry their velocity and usually stay nose-on to at least 1,000, and even that can depend on atmospheric conditions when talking 20" barrels. We did recently find some bullets sideways on a plate at 1,138, could have been from my LTR 175's or a buddy's 168s from his 26" rifle - neither one of which is particularly suited to that distance.

I am really looking forward to trying some Lapua 155 Scenars in their factory ammo for the long shots. I got a box and haven't had a chance to shoot them. The ballistic coefficient of the Scenar is the same as the Sierra 175 SMK, yet, it can be driven about 200 FPS faster. This means it gets there faster, thus shooting flatter and getting less wind than the 175. I need 43 MOA to get my 175 back on at 1k, the Scenar needs 38 moa. . . I have had great results to 1,200 yards in the LTR with the Scenars, and a friend just placed 5th at a long distance tactical match using these in his .308 against a bunch of 6.5-284s, .300WinMags, etc..

newman
June 21, 2006, 01:34 PM
I want to thank everyone for their feedback. I think I'm pretty much sold on the LTR. Also, I have a list of ammo to try based on your feedback.

Thanks again.

Gewehr98
June 21, 2006, 01:47 PM
How fast are you pushing those rounds out of your 20" shorty LTR to stay supersonic out to 1000-1200 yards? I know that if you're missing 6" of burn time, you must have a special load to compensate, would you care to share?:confused:

USSR
June 21, 2006, 02:44 PM
I need 43 MOA to get my 175 back on at 1k...

Not very fast.

Don

33-805
June 21, 2006, 02:58 PM
I have taken deer with both the PSS and the LTR. Out here in Kansas, all shots are long shots, at least out here on the prairie. Both were very long shots but we practice regularly at these ranges so they were pretty much business as usual. Either rifle is a really good choice for hunting and target use and one hole groups are the norm. I have used the LTR for the last couple of years and will probably continue to do so simply because of the weight difference. Good hunting!

newman
July 5, 2006, 01:19 PM
Well, I bought the 700P LTR this weekend. Cant wait to try it out.

I'm thinking about putting either a 4.5-14x42 or a 6.5-20x50 on it.

Any recomendations? Hunting/Target shooting.

JNewell
July 5, 2006, 02:02 PM
Congrats - you will be happy. On the scope, I would say that's a lot of scope (IMO/YMMV). I have a Leup Vari-X III 1.75-6x on my .308 and have no trouble keeping 1/2" groups at 100 yds even with the thing dialed all the way down (but shooting targets with a white cross in the center, which is sorta cheating!). It's a very compact scope...I think a 2x7 might be ideal but again YMMV.

Lonestar.45
July 5, 2006, 04:21 PM
For deer stand hunting or target shooting, the 700P would be great. But if your hunting involves stalking and walking around/hiking a lot, I'd think the 700P would be heavier than what I'd want to carry.

EShell
July 6, 2006, 10:45 AM
JNewell is probably dead on about the scope, though I usually opt for *slightly* more power myself.

Since I'm very accustomed to using a scope and I always have good target acquisition at almost any magnification, and that I shoot competitions, as well as hunt with it, I put a 4.5-14x40 on mine and it seemed perfect in size and magnification.

I eventually gave the 4.5-14x to my daughter for her long range .243 and put a 3.5-10x40 on the LTR and I *really* miss the extra few "x" when shooting at long range. The higher magnification is especially helpful if you use your reticle to range targets, as some competitions require.

I have several Vari-x III 6.5-20s on other rifles and IMHO, 6.5x is too much when the light fades, even 4.5x can seem dark during legal shooting light in certain circumstances. Also, unless the scope is a "second focal plane" scope, meaning the reticle stays the same apparent size, a reticle that subtends enough to see at low power/low light will be too thick/heavy at maximum magnification for best precision, thus negating some of the benefit of the 20x top end.

YMMV. . . . :)

newman
July 6, 2006, 11:38 AM
I've been using a 3-9x40 and have been wanting to try a higher power for long range. I think Eshell had the answer for me and I'll probably go with the 4.5-14x40(which is what I was leaning towards anyways).

Thanks again to everyone for the feedback.

If you enjoyed reading about "Remington 700P for hunting?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!