Model 70 vs Model 700 accuracy...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've been shooting and accurizing Rem 700s for about 60 years and find them to be quite accurate, if done right. All my 700s will shoot 3/8 MOA and better, using handloads. That said, my buddy has a Model 70 that will shoot as well, after I worked on it.

It pains me to read tests in various shooting magazines that brag about 1+" groups (or worse) in tests, but realize that most people who buy the rifles won't do any better than that, despite the rifle, due to the factory ammo used. There's no real need for anyone shooting at deer inside of 300 yards to have a rifle that groups better than 1" at 100 yards, but I'm not happy taking a rifle hunting that shoots worse than 3/4 MOA because I'll be using carefully-reloaded ammo in a bedded and trigger-tuned, nicely-scoped rifle. And, I figure I deserve it! (You probably deserve it too.)
 
Last edited:
You do know that the Panda actions are flat bottomed, right? Just like a M70. It’s far easier to bed a flat bottomed action than a round action like a 700. And a flat bottom action is stiffer than a round action.
Yeah but the Panda Action uses the Walker Remington design concentric bolt head (with a different extractor at least these days) and the bedding lug on the shorter action .
 
One aspect of the M70 that isn’t often brought up is the flat bottom. When it comes to rigidity and bearing surface for bedding, I’ll take a M70 over a 700 any day. As others have pointed out, and I tend to agree with, if building your “grail” gun, go with a custom action from the ground up. It makes financial sense and customs are more often than not already in-spec compared to mass produced actions like the 700 and the 70. I would go custom if it were my build, but I’ve been there a time or two and done that, so I’ve learned along the way.

As for a 700, it’s got more aftermarket support than any brand there is, and it’s the modern action against which all others are measured. Nothing really wrong with either a 700 or a 70, but build wise you’ll be glad you started custom. Find your gunsmith and ask him all the questions you can think of. He will tell you what he likes to work with, so listen carefully. Good luck!

Flat-bottomed actions tend to walk rounds sideways because they don't self-center in the bedding like a round-bottomed action. This was written many years ago and ascribed to by the benchrest fraternity many moons ago and that's one reason that about all benchrest rifles have round-bottomed actions.
 
Perhaps one reason why target rifles have traditionally had Remington-type actions instead of controlled-round feed is that they're easier to single-load on the target range. I know that when sighting-in rifles with controlled-round feed, I tend to fill the magazine instead of single-loading them.
 
Perhaps one reason why target rifles have traditionally had Remington-type actions instead of controlled-round feed is that they're easier to single-load on the target range. I know that when sighting-in rifles with controlled-round feed, I tend to fill the magazine instead of single-loading them.

There’s little to debate with the 700s popularity. Model 70s absolutely dominated HP competiton for decades. Anyone who showed up with a 700 to a match was laughed at.

Where the 700 (and all other round actions) excels is in the smaller calibers. If I were to build a 30 cal Magnum for prone long range competition or hunting or the like, it'd be on a M70. Wouldn't even consider an M700 for that application - not unless I wanted to rebed it every few hundred rounds.

The 700 has always dominated silhouette competition, and still does. With the milder cartridges used in that game, the round bottomed receiver doesn't have any disadvantages here, so that's not an issue.
 
from
There’s little to debate with the 700s popularity. Model 70s absolutely dominated HP competiton for decades. Anyone who showed up with a 700 to a match was laughed at.
Mr. Anchorite is on target about the M-70 dominating HP competition for decades. One big reason for the 70's overwhelming popularity was that it was about the ONLY choice in finished, ready to shoot HP target rifles. When I first got into serious HP competition virtually everyone was shooting Winchester target rifles except for a few old timers who still used their tricked out '03 Springfields. Remington 700 Match rifles didn't even exist until the '70's and even then noone took them seriously. Even those of of us who had custom target rifles, they were built on Pre-64 M-70 actions, such as the three shown here. At top, a .300 Win Mag, I used in 1000 yd competitions, next a new era stock style and at bottom: my long time favorite built by rifle guru Roy Dunlap. DSC_0197.JPG .
 
Man ! The "glue in " process has come along way since Lee Six !
Yes it did, I shot Panda glued in chamber 6ppc. My heavy was Kodiak. My HBR was build by Speedy. Ralph Stoole made round action call Grizzly and flat bottom Polar and that made of steel Hall&Hart made round bottom actions and Shilen made flat bottom DGA action. I never did shoot Rem action.

If you get chance to get this
https://www.amazon.com/Benchrest-Actions-Triggers-Stuart-Otteson/dp/0935632123
It give break down on action used and history
 
from
Mr. Anchorite is on target about the M-70 dominating HP competition for decades. One big reason for the 70's overwhelming popularity was that it was about the ONLY choice in finished, ready to shoot HP target rifles. When I first got into serious HP competition virtually everyone was shooting Winchester target rifles except for a few old timers who still used their tricked out '03 Springfields. Remington 700 Match rifles didn't even exist until the '70's and even then noone took them seriously. Even those of of us who had custom target rifles, they were built on Pre-64 M-70 actions, such as the three shown here. At top, a .300 Win Mag, I used in 1000 yd competitions, next a new era stock style and at bottom: my long time favorite built by rifle guru Roy Dunlap.View attachment 894060 .



Amazing lifetime collection !
 
I doubt that you will see very much difference between the Model 700 and the Model 70. Pick the one that you like and go with it. Another poster offered good advice in picking a Smith that specializes in the action that you choose.

I have several 700's that I rebarreled that shoot 1 hole groups without doing any truing work on the action. Around 1/4 to 3/8 inch groups, certainly under 1/2 inch. After considering the purpose of the rifle and the cost for blueprinting I chose to leave the action as it came. If I was planning to compete at the upper levels I would consider blueprinting. But then again, I would go with a high end custom action. My one custom action also shoots 1 hole groups but where the 700's shoot ragged 1 hole groups, my groups from my custom action look like on slightly enlarged bullet hole.

Since this is to be a hunting rifle, consider that a custom action may be too tight for using in bad conditions. Mud, snow, ice and dirt can build up and jam a really tight action. I'm talking Bat, Nesika Bay, Stolle, ect.

As far as the accuracy of the 300WM goes, it can be very good. Several friends have custom 300's that shoot 1 hole groups. Most are 700's but at least one friend has a build on a Model 70. A good barrel, good loading procedures, and good components should shoot well.
 
from
Mr. Anchorite is on target about the M-70 dominating HP competition for decades. One big reason for the 70's overwhelming popularity was that it was about the ONLY choice in finished, ready to shoot HP target rifles. When I first got into serious HP competition virtually everyone was shooting Winchester target rifles except for a few old timers who still used their tricked out '03 Springfields. Remington 700 Match rifles didn't even exist until the '70's and even then noone took them seriously. Even those of of us who had custom target rifles, they were built on Pre-64 M-70 actions, such as the three shown here. At top, a .300 Win Mag, I used in 1000 yd competitions, next a new era stock style and at bottom: my long time favorite built by rifle guru Roy Dunlap.View attachment 894060 .

David Tubb won more of his across the course National Championships with M70's than any other type. And then he started experimenting with semi auto's, which did not feed reliably, than came up with the Tubb rifle. The M70 was a smooth and slick action and it had very few parts breakage. The firing pin was fast, ejection reliable with the claw extractor, but pre 64's got very expensive, and you could buy M40's direct from Remington that were guaranteed to shoot 1/2 MOA from the factory. Winchester walked away from the competitive shooting market, so to making a target M70 got to be more expensive.

And then the Space Gun (223 AR15's) finally developed into accurate and reliable target rifles. The AR had advantages, ammunition was cheap, feeding from a magazine was more reliable than a magazine well. Clipper strips jam and sometimes stack on the wrong side of the floorplate, causing the round on the top to roll off the action. Magazines are chunky, easy to grab, and easy to load into the lower of an AR. And the fact I did not have to roll around between rounds, working a bolt, was a huge advantage in rapid fire. I had more time to aim, and the X counts with rapid fire scores went up. At 600 yards the 223 had slightly inferior ballistics to a 168 SMK in a 308 Win. Hugely worse ballistics than any 6.5 or 7mm round. But you know, in across the course, you win the match standing slow fire and lose it at Long Range. High master 600 yard shooters are almost all within three points of each, they all clean the rapids, but scores vary widely in standing.

Evaluating an action solely on accuracy, and accuracy alone, you have to eliminate the human. When a human holds the rifle, his stock weld, trigger pull, sling tension, wind judgement, and flinch, greatly affects the precision and consistency of his score. The human error is typically orders of magnitude greater than mechanical errors. But, when you eliminate the human as much as possible, as the precision sports are doing, with huge bench rest type rifles, on expensive, geared mechanical rests, with electronic triggers, you might as well do your shooting from a computer screen and a keyboard.

But maybe that is the future. Time magazine states that Pentagon: 7 in 10 Youths Would Fail to Qualify for Military Service but when you strip out the criminals from that statistic, nearly one-third, 31 percent, of young people ages 17-24 are too overweight to qualify for military service. Being overweight or obese is the largest medical disqualifier, and the largest overall disqualifier when looking at young people who are ineligible for a single reason.

So, maybe the rifle of the future is not going to be hand held, because Americans are too rotund to shoot prone, too fat to shoot sitting without rolling backwards, or too weak to hold one off hand.
 
Last edited:
Evaluating an action solely on accuracy, and accuracy alone, you have to eliminate the human. When a human holds the rifle, his stock weld, trigger pull, sling tension, wind judgement, and flinch, greatly affects the precision and consistency of his score. The human error is typically orders of magnitude greater than mechanical errors. But, when you eliminate the human as much as possible, as the precision sports are doing, with huge bench rest type rifles, on expensive, geared mechanical rests, with electronic triggers, you might as well do your shooting from a computer screen and a keyboard.
Bold and underline added

Couldn't agree more with the statement above. That type of competition is totally lost on me; but to each his/her own. I feel like I would be confused as to whether I should give the award to the gunsmith, the custom reloader, the spotter or the person sitting behind the rifle of whom won the competition. But when big money enters competition some of the true spirit is lost I feel, it is that way with all competitive sports and events.

This is why I appreciate PRS type competitions where one has to have some endurance (breathing control, stamina to finish all positions); and it places the person in different shooting positions, the rifles have to be carried between each position (so no 30lb. bench rifle, with 3oz. trigger, concrete bench and self-leveling bench rest), ranges and wind will change with positions, etc.
 
Last edited:
This is why I appreciate PRS type competitions where one has to have some endurance; and it places the person in different shooting positions, the rifles have to be carried between each position (so no 30lb. bench rifle, with 3oz. trigger, concrete bench and self-leveling bench rest),

Not to derail this particular thread, but what weight of rifle and trigger are you using? Obviously we’re not shooting unlimited bench rifles bolted into fixtures, but my PRS match rifles are over 20lbs, and have 6oz and 4oz triggers, and I know I’m not as heavy in rifle or as light in trigger as many folks.
 
Not to derail this particular thread, but what weight of rifle and trigger are you using? Obviously we’re not shooting unlimited bench rifles bolted into fixtures, but my PRS match rifles are over 20lbs, and have 6oz and 4oz triggers, and I know I’m not as heavy in rifle or as light in trigger as many folks.

I'm not a competitor in PRS; would like to get into it. I have several friends who do and some of the courses they are shooting they are running between shots, and setting up with different positions. Their rifles are not 20 lbs., maybe their triggers are as light as yours. But its a lot different than precision benchrest.
 
This most recent exchange makes me laugh. I'm saving all the precision games for when I'm too old, fat, and/or lame to shoot USPSA any more.
 
This most recent exchange makes me laugh. I'm saving all the precision games for when I'm too old, fat, and/or lame to shoot USPSA any more.

Like being put out to pasture...I kid, I kid.

I have no problem with precision benchrest, I just stated it's not for me. More power to those in which it blows their wind flag.
 
PRS generally tends to be homogenizing to the lowest common denominator. No more pistol inclusions, since the safety aspect is simply too challenging when balanced against the reward. Fewer and fewer high intensity obstacles - like climbing to the top of a 15ft cargo net to shoot from the top of the rail. Fewer and fewer physical stressor stages - aka, running around to get your heart rate up, dragging tires, etc. Can’t do much about the walk between stages at some of these ranges - not uncommon for my pedometer to measure a few miles during a match. But it’s mostly shorter walks every 30min or so.

I kicked a poll to our Kansas Precision Rifle Club today, most guys are reporting 20-25lbs. Only two of the newer guys were 14 and 17, both acknowledging they wanted more rifle weight for this season.
 
PRS generally tends to be homogenizing to the lowest common denominator. No more pistol inclusions, since the safety aspect is simply too challenging when balanced against the reward. Fewer and fewer high intensity obstacles - like climbing to the top of a 15ft cargo net to shoot from the top of the rail. Fewer and fewer physical stressor stages - aka, running around to get your heart rate up, dragging tires, etc. Can’t do much about the walk between stages at some of these ranges - not uncommon for my pedometer to measure a few miles during a match. But it’s mostly shorter walks every 30min or so.

I kicked a poll to our Kansas Precision Rifle Club today, most guys are reporting 20-25lbs. Only two of the newer guys were 14 and 17, both acknowledging they wanted more rifle weight for this season.
Sounds like USPSA, no more climbing over walls and running cooper tunnels.
 
Last edited:
PRS generally tends to be homogenizing to the lowest common denominator. No more pistol inclusions, since the safety aspect is simply too challenging when balanced against the reward. Fewer and fewer high intensity obstacles - like climbing to the top of a 15ft cargo net to shoot from the top of the rail. Fewer and fewer physical stressor stages - aka, running around to get your heart rate up, dragging tires, etc. Can’t do much about the walk between stages at some of these ranges - not uncommon for my pedometer to measure a few miles during a match. But it’s mostly shorter walks every 30min or so.

I kicked a poll to our Kansas Precision Rifle Club today, most guys are reporting 20-25lbs. Only two of the newer guys were 14 and 17, both acknowledging they wanted more rifle weight for this season.

That's sad to hear, guess if PRS continues down that road, it's another that doesn't interest me. Maybe I'm too much of a realist, but what you are describing sounds a little bit like golf. Pretty soon we'll have electric PRS carts to get us from stage to stage and be blood doping to help with an elevated heart rate from walking from said PRS cart to shooting position.

I probably am going too far, and am stepping on toes; but it's just how I feel about some of these competitions and where they are headed.
 
Last edited:
That's sad to hear, guess if PRS continues down that road, it's another that doesn't interest me. Maybe I'm too much of a realist, but what you are describing sounds a little bit like golf.

It’s definitely not that. You’re still moving on the clock. We just aren’t seeing stressor stages where heart rates are pushed up artificially. In other words, we’re not seeing stages with “engage near and far target with one round each, then do 5 burpees, engage both targets again, do 10 burpees, both again, do 15 burpees, etc” or “shoot one round, retreat behind firing line and drag the truck tire 10 yards, return to shoot one round, drag the truck tire 10 yards, etc”.

The only stressor stages I saw last year were “ammo behind the line” stages where you started with 3 rounds, then had to run 5yrds back behind the line to grab more rounds.

Plenty of stages are set up to make you move. 5-10 positions with 10 rounds in 90 seconds will challenge your ability to build positions, you just won’t be emulating Richard Simmons between shots any more.
 
Of interest for some folks who might read this:

Area419 is offering a great price on Defiance Tenacity actions right now. Defiance is changing to an integral lug for the future Tenacity actions, so Area419 bought out all of their inventory of pinned lug Tenacity actions, and is offering them at reduced prices. Great deal on a tight tolerance, great running custom/upgraded 700 clone action.

0E9DAE0C-7E7E-4885-A2EE-C525939472DD.jpeg
C2F2DBEC-5EAB-4E05-84DF-804524CF2DE7.jpeg
 
disappointment in PRS stage design is one of the reasons i haven't shot a match in 2-3 years now. however, there are a lot of outlaw sniper matches out there that still have a lot of stressors built in, not just for the sake of stressors. i hope PRS gets a lot less lame.
 
I’m about to have a custom rifle built. I’m going with a 300 Win Mag for sure. The idea is to have a very accurate, long range hunting rig. My personal experience has been that factory 700s shoot better than factory 70s, but what about the actions themselves. Can a Model 70 action be made to shoot as well as a Model 700 action? Are there limiting factors to how well a Model 70 action can be made to shoot?
IF, accuracy is what you are after, then between those two, I'd pick the 700 action every time!

IF, general hunting accuracy is what you are after, then I would pick either...

When custom guys are looking for accurate hunting actions, have you looked at what action they have copied most?? There's a reason for that!

Back when I was into bench rest shooting, the class' that were for hunting rifles, Remington 700's won 99+ % of the matches, match after match....

DM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top