Is the Remington 725 a sleeper?


May 3, 2014, 10:42 PM
The Remington 725, deluxe version of the 721, hinged floor plate, cut checkering, three position safety, and only 17,000 made from 1958-61.

Do you think in years ahead collectors will start seeking them out? Why, or why not?

How do they compare to a pre 64 Winchester model 70?

If you enjoyed reading about "Is the Remington 725 a sleeper?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
May 3, 2014, 11:41 PM
Yes, I think the 725 is a sleeper. It has a cult following in some areas. More collectors are becoming aware of how nice they really are. Wish I had one!
It is more than just a 721 with a hinged floorplate. It is the transition model between the M-30 (1917 sporter) and the 721.

May 4, 2014, 02:04 PM
The Model 725 is my favorite Remington bolt-action rifle, made only for a short period of time (between 1958 and 1961). It's more of a gussied-up 721/722 (adding hand-cut checkering on the stock, hinged floor plate, sling-swivels, machined trigger guard, etc.) and, more correctly, is a "transitional" model between it and the Model 700 (all essentially the same rifles with mostly cosmetic and floor plate changes).

I think the Model 725 compared very favorably with the pre-64 Winchester Model 70. The Model 70, of course, came with a Mauser-style extractor, a feature none of the Models 721, 722, 725 or 700 ever had, if that's important to you. Are you sure the Model 725 had a three-position safety? That would be news to me.

May 4, 2014, 09:58 PM
It appears that the 3 position safety was used on the M725, and was not transitioned to the M700 when it was introduced in 1962. Only Remington knows why.


May 5, 2014, 12:00 AM
Kp321 is thinking of the the Remington Model 720, a sporting rifle based on a slicked up 1917 Enfield action. It was offered for a few years before the Second World War. Remington followed it with the 721 in 1948...

May 5, 2014, 09:33 PM
Thanks for the correction. The 725 is still a very nice rifle.

May 6, 2014, 10:45 AM
Comparing it to the pre 64 will only get rocks thrown at you.

Pre 64 fans like to think their's were handfitted guns that were put together in a simpler time when the assemblers were proud of the labor they put into them. The reality was that Winchester couldn't get the parts to a finish tolerance, hand fitting was required, and the labor was eating up the profit on the guns. They were headed to closing the doors on it.

So, management and the engineers got their heads screwed on straight, made parts that were much closer to print, were nearly interchangeable, and the company started making a profit.

If the 725 was like that, then it's no wonder Remington quit making them. Labor intensive guns that eat up profit aren't necessarily better. But, good luck telling that to the collectors, as it would only deflate their opinions and high pricing.

You really can't hand fit a gun and sell it cheap for a mass market price tag. Which is why the 1911 isn't assembled at home, but the AR15 is. The parts are truly much more interchangeable. The realities of mass production aren't what we think they are.

loose noose
May 6, 2014, 11:48 AM
I've all ways been a big fan of the Remington Model 725, but could never find one. In 1974 I settled on a Remington 700 BDL Custom Deluxe in .270. It has served me well as a matter of fact. The 700 BDL is actually as close as you can get IMHO.

Shanghai McCoy
May 6, 2014, 12:03 PM
I have a 721 in 270. A good solid rifle and pretty accurate. Unfortunatly, the stock has been "bubba'd" for someone very short.
I did not know that the 725 was the predessor...

Jim Watson
May 6, 2014, 10:36 PM
The 725 looks to me like it combines the cylindrical receiver and "three rings of steel" breeching of the 721 (and 700) with a slightly subdued version of the cranked bolt handle of the 720 and the receiver safety of the 720/30S/1917/P14/P13.

A suspicious mind might think they found some of those safeties left over and used them on an upgraded version of the 721 while they lasted.

May 8, 2014, 04:27 PM
Regarding the question as to whether the Model 725 came with a 3-position safety or not, after doing a little more research on the matter (including reviewing Frank de Haas' excellent book, "Bolt Action Rifles"); I'm going to stick with my original position-that the Model 725 never came with a factory 3-position safety and that it always shared the same basic 2-position safety as found on the models 721, 722 and 700 (with the caveat that in 1982, Remington made a small change in the operation of the safety to permit unloading the rifle with the safety "on", but still having only two positions).
If someone can verify that 725s came with 3-position safeties, I would love to see the evidence-you learn something new (most :)) every day.

Jim Watson
May 8, 2014, 04:43 PM
I do not consider company copy writers to be a fully reliable source after 50 years, but from the Remington www on the "Safety modification program":

"Remington Model 725 rifles were manufactured from 1957 until 1962. Model 725 rifles have a three-position safety, which permits those rifles to be unloaded with the safety in the “mid” position."


May 8, 2014, 07:24 PM
I consider your source to be pretty reliable. And I find it just as interesting to ponder why Remington returned to the two-position safety when they introduced the Model 700. Very interesting indeed.
Thanks for the "update".

If you enjoyed reading about "Is the Remington 725 a sleeper?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!