Has Remington lost their touch?

Yes. It's widely blown out of proportion, but their quality control has certainly suffered in recent years.

Yes its true...has been for a few years now.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I have four Remington 700s acquired in the last 4 years, 2 SPSs, one XHR and one XCR II. All are great shooters with no malfunctions. I appreciate all you other guys buying the bad ones.

FH
NRA Certified Instructor
NRA Life Member
1946-vintage Curmudgeon

Same here. I've bought several new ones in the last couple years. All superbly accurate, all function flawlessly.

Yep! In a recent multi rifle accuracy comparison the Remington 700 finnished dead LAST! That is a long fall from being the most accurate mass produced out of the box rifle in the world. Last three Remingtons I owned were garbage I won't touch another one, saw Rem 700s with walnut stocks on clearence the other day for $400, I laughed and kept on walking, not even worth that......SAD. The worst part is I used to be a diehard Remington fan

what I don't like about Remington is the CDL stocks, recoil pads and the sps stocks. I don't like those funky grip and forearm areas I just like traditional checkering and well fitting recoil pads. I also did not care for my 700 bought in 2001 for several other reasons. The chamber was anything but tight (though safe). The bolt had slight wobble when locked up. Accuracy was only so-so for a heavy barrel.
I wish they would just make a nice walnut checkered stock with decent pad like the "classic" model but with a thicker black pad and just do regular production with it in all calibers. And really pay attention to the things that matter like squarely machined actions/ bolts and chambers with minimal headspacing.
I liked the circa 1992 223 BDL "varmint special" with 24" sporter barrel and the old trigger. Those things could definitely walk the dog.

I don't think they have lost anything. A Remington today is probably as good or better than a comparable Remington made at any time.

But I do see 2 problems, one is real, the other is perception.

The real problem is that while Remington is just as good as ever, other companies have surpassed them with better guns, and often better prices. While I used to be a devoted Remington fan, this has lured me away from Remington.

The perception problem is that years ago Remington rifles were all highly polished blue and walnut. They still make those guns, but the budget guns with matte finish and cheap plastic stocks are the ones people see the most. They want to compare those budget guns with yesterdays top end guns and complain about quality. If you compare apples to apples I don't see much difference.

I don't like about Remington is the CDL stocks,

Click to expand...

like the "classic" model but with

Click to expand...

I liked the circa 1992 223 BDL

Click to expand...

I hear this complaint from time to time, but don't understand why. The CDL is a copy of the "Classic" style of the 1920's through the early 1950's. It is simply a slightly trimmer Classic stock with a black forend tip. Best looking, most functional stock Remington has ever put on a rifle.

The BDL is a futuristic modern design from the space age 1950's-70's when folks wanted huge cars with tailfins and lots of chrome. Weatherby started the trend back then and Remington followed with their BDL. I've always thought they were gaudy, flashy, heavy, ill fitting and ugly. Ruger brought back a sensible stock design in the late 60's and eveyone has copied that style ever since. Remington discontinued the BDL, but has brought it back in limited chamberings and in short runs. The BDL and Weatherby are the only 2 companies still using this modernistic design. I say let it die along with disco, bell bottoms and most everything from that era.

Ive had a couple Remington's since the take over. Had a SPS Tactical and a 700 LTR. Both were fantastic rifles. Several of my friends have bought Remington recently and haven't had a bad one yet. I do believe that Remington's QC has gone down but I still think they put out a good rifle, especially if you buy the higher end rifles instead of the SPS.

what are the quality control problems i hear so much about? I started buying remingtons when winchester stopped production and i could not get my 100 year anniversary 30-06. I have bought five, a .17 fireball, .260, a .221 fireball, and two .264's. all shot well. the .221 even has the goofy bolt lock hoobis. When the boys wont buy polished blue and fine walnut the company wont make many of them. Lower priced remington rifles while ugly compare well to the other company's low priced ugly rifles in my opinion. you cant have presentation walnut and what reminds you of Royal Blue for the cost of synthetic and some spray on coating.

In my opinion and my own experience, no, they have not at all lost their touch.

I have 4 Remington's, 3 of which were purchased over the last 2 years, and every one of them have been excellent (700 CDL 30-06, 750 30-06, and 870 12 gg home defense).

The only caveat I will add, is the 2 rifles did have trigger work which my 2 Winchesters, 3 Savage rifles have had no need for...whatsoever.

C-grunt said:

I do believe that Remington's QC has gone down but I still think they put out a good rifle, especially if you buy the higher end rifles instead of the SPS.

Click to expand...

I had a top notch 700 CDL 7mm Rem Mag and the stupid thing would not chamber a round My hunting buddy ignored my warning and paid stupid money for an R1, that was the only 1911 I have ever seen jam over and over and over with every kind of ammo we feed it, even after a factory rebuild! His cheap $300 Firehawk was a thousand times better. If that is not QC issues I don't know what is. Had I seen one decent firearm out of the last four duds I might cut them a break, but four bad ones in a row is enough to cure me for good. Sticking to Savage, Winchester, Tikka, Sig, and Springfield now.

I have several newer 700's, I'm thinking 4 of them are less than 3 years old. Just as accurate and dependable as my old ones. They're all heavy barrelled varmint rifles if that makes a difference. I haven't seen any fall off in accuracy or dependability here.

one thing you have to keep in mind is the cost of manufacturing and inflation.


in the 1960s many of the processes to make the remington 700 were done by hand, this lead to a firearm with a much better fit an finish than ones cranked out by machines...

...but this came at a cost, in 1966 a remington 700 cost $150, adjusting for inflation thats a touch over $1,000.......for a grand they better be a damn good rifle.



today many of the processes are automated, this makes the firearms cheaper and more easily produced, and today you can buy a remington 700 for $550....



so if you are comparing a a rifle from the 60's to a modern rifle, of course the quality is going to seem higher, and it should, because you are comparing a $1000 rifle to a $550 rifle.



now could remington ramp up their quality?....sure they could..... but look at who their primary target is, its mostly hunters, and last i checked most hunters arent willing to pony up a grand for a rifle when a perfectly servicable rifle can be had for half the price.

Remingtons are great, so are Kimbers. I am not sure what some folks judge quality on. It is impossible to build a machine that all humans will like. Obviously lemons occur. In most cases though it is the human side of the equation that is the problem. Some people just cannot shoot...they tend to be the ones that have the most trouble with firearms.

Remingtons are great, so are Kimbers. I am not sure what some folks judge quality on. It is impossible to build a machine that all humans will like. Obviously lemons occur. In most cases though it is the human side of the equation that is the problem. Some people just cannot shoot...they tend to be the ones that have the most trouble with firearms.

Click to expand...

It's typical internet nonsense. One guy writes about how his 700 won't "shoot" it then spreads to a bunch of forums/boards and the next thing you know you get threads like this one wondering why Remington's QC is garbage, when in fact the guns they're producing today are just as good as the ones made during the "Golden age" in the 50's-60's

my CDL is a 2012 and it is everything I ever dreamed ofin a rifle! 1/2 inch groups at 100 and it will do better than that. 2 hogs and a deer this yr and I hitem were I wanted too every time. No complaints!!!!

The 770's are garbage. I have seen probably 50 people with feeding issues etc at the gun shop I work at.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

The 770's are garbage.

Click to expand...

I was hunting with a guy who had one last weekend. I was not impressed with the fit and finish or even the way it sounded when working the bolt and other moving parts. He had major problems getting the magazine seated, working the bolt, the safety etc. Don't know if it was the rifle or him or a little of both. I think Savage offers a much better rifle in the "budget" class.

Are any parts for anything Remington outsourced to China now? Just a curious question...ducking and running.

A couple of years ago I purchased a CDL SF in 300 WSM. Out of the box it wouldn't group as well as I had hoped considering the cost. Was ready to unload it but decided to have a little work done it. Score High in ABQ floated and pillar bedded the action as well as crowning the muzzle. I also installed a Timney trigger. Total investment was about $400 but well worth it. When I am having a good day, it would shoot 1/2" MOA with reloads. Due to the slim barrel profile, groups will string as the barrel heats up but not an issue with a hunting rifle. My friend has the same rifle in 270 and out of the box it is one of the most accurate production rifles I have ever shot. So who knows...maybe mine was made on a Monday.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with Remingtons I just think there is a lot more competition now. Keep in mind that at it's core, the 700 was designed to be a cheap, easy to produce mass production rifle, not a high level piece of craftsmanship. The sheer volume of them out there and plethora of after-market support means that many gunsmiths and builders have taken the basic platform to higher levels, but doing so doesn't come cheap. Many companies now make rifles as good and better than most Remington 700's at comparable price levels. I've never owned a 700, so I can't speak to any recent quality control issues but when looking to put together a high quality long range rifle I didn't really consider them. There are just better rifles out there that are better designed.

The 700 will always shoot. Most are sub 1" rifles with the right loads and with a little work all are. The last couple I have owned needed the crown recut and the bolt lapped for even engagement and were fabulous shooters afterward.

I do not own a single Remington at the moment having forsaken big green for some more refined products from Finland However I would not think twice about buying back the .223 VLS or the .243 VLS Or for that matter the 788 in .243. All were fine rifles that did their job untill I could afford better guns.

VAPOPO said:

I do not own a single Remington at the moment having forsaken big green for some more refined products from Finland

Click to expand...

Which one Sako or Tikka? BTW I agree