Keep Remington 700 that is 50 years old or sell it and buy a brand new rifle

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wolverine_173

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
384
So I have a rem 700 made in 1965 I got in a trade chambered in 30-06, wood stockstock. Is a 50 year old gun going to perform as well as a new gun?

I figure I could sell it for $350-$400 and get a new gun. Im assuming a new gun like a Marin xl7 savage axis or Ruger American would have a better trigger and barrel. And im worried a 50 year old gun might have springs or something that could fail. I don't know how many rounds have been shot through it but the bore doesn't have any pitting.

So should I keep the 700 or get new off the shelf for $350? I already have a Nikon buckmaster scope ready to put on a gun. Which option would be the best shooter and the most reliable? If I keep the 700 I would get a synthetic stock for it.
 
How does it shoot? If it is a shooter, keep it.
Don't worry about the springs and steel, they're probably fine.
 
How does it shoot? If it is a shooter, keep it.
Click to expand...
I agree. The workmanship on the older 700s is much better than the new guns. It all depends on the condition of the barrel, etc. and what you want to use it for.
 
Mines is 48 years old and has never shot better

Mines is 48 years old and has never shot better I would not part with it. I've had some of the new rifles and my old 700 shots as good or better than them.
 
The older Remingtons have great triggers. Just clean the FCG out real good and make sure it's lubed and adjusted properly. I think you can get replacement springs for it
 
Well I need to shoot it and decide but chances are I'll keep it.

Anyone selling a synthetic stock the an adl model?
 
If it were me, I'd keep it unless it was beat up, pitted, etc.
 
It's a horrible gun and you must immediately get rid of it!

By selling it to me...

:D

Seriously, if the gun is in good condition (meaning it's not been abused or otherwise damaged such that it's unsafe somehow) and it shoots well, then there is absolutely no reason to get rid of it.

HOWEVER, that said...if you ARE considering selling it because you want to finance a new purchase, that's OK too. And since exactly this gun has been on my wish list for a rather long time, I would seriously consider buying it from you (after exchanging pictures and such, of course). So if you DO wish to sell it, please contact me.

But otherwise, it should be a keeper for you.

:)
 
"Is a 50 year old gun going to perform as well as a new gun?"

Probably better.
 
Wolverine;

I'm no fan of Remington, and I'll tell you to keep it. Even if it doesn't have gilt-edge accuracy, the fixes are very well known and inexpensive in most cases.

900F
 
I'll join in the chorus, sort of, and say quite possibly better.

The old style workmanship of the middle 20th century was often pretty good, and there is a high likelihood that your rifle will perform to your expectations or hopes. And it will probably look prettier to most folks' tastes than a new mass-produced rifle.

But remember, that Remington 700 was "mass produced," too. They just weren't as efficient at mass production back then, so more hand-work had to go into it, and they were limited in material choices to solid steel and wood which we now look back on fondly as indicative of "quality."

There is a great deal of denigration of the "crappy" and "disposable" way a lot of manufacturers build rifles these days, but the truth is many decades of improvements in the field of industrial engineering and manufacturing allow them to make very precise and accurate parts (and guns) using less expensive processes and materials than makers did back in the '60s. It is entirely possible that you could buy a $300 Marlin or Ruger American and find it is clearly more accurate than your 50 year old Remington 700. It will have plastic parts and a synthetic stock and will not be highly polished and deeply blued and won't include a lot of the stuff that gun guys like to call "quality" ... but it will probably shoot like crazy.

If you like your Remington for what it is, as it is, and it shoots well enough for your needs/wants, keep it. If you're going to replace the stock anyway, the balance of whether it makes more sense to keep it or buy something else starts to shift. If you're going to have to replace the barrel to get it shooting to your desired standard, the balance shifts farther. You can have that Remington rebuilt into an amazing rifle -- actually, you can have it built into any of lots of different patterns of amazing rifles, from ultra-light mountain hunter, to precision long-range gun, to "tactical" tool, to competition gun, to ...anything you like. But that's adding a lot of cost, and if you really just want a fresh new hunting rifle that will come with a "MOA" accuracy guarantee, you can easily get that for very little money these days.

There's no easy answer to your question. :)
 
Last edited:
You have a machine that has stood the test of time but want to sell it to buy a machine that may have been made on a Monday or a Friday?

Seriously, the only reason to "upgrade" a system is when that system no longer answers the use you have for it. If the rifle functions well and is accurate you may want to consider long and hard.
 
No way in the world would I sell that gun. The 1968 Rem 700 min 30-06 that I inherited was/is a true piece of workmanship. If you decide to sell it then put it on THR and I may bid on it.
 
Sam1911 said:
I'll join in the chorus, sort of, and say quite possibly better.

The old style workmanship of the middle 20th century was often pretty good, and there is a high likelihood that your rifle will perform to your expectations or hopes. And it will probably look prettier to most folks' tastes than a new mass-produced rifle.

But remember, that Remington 700 was "mass produced," too. They just weren't as efficient at mass production back then, so more hand-work had to go into it, and they were limited in material choices to solid steel and wood which we now look back on fondly as indicative of "quality."

There is a great deal of denigration of the "crappy" and "disposable" way a lot of manufacturers build rifles these days, but the truth is many decades of improvements in the field of industrial engineering and manufacturing allow them to make very precise and accurate parts (and guns) using less expensive processes and materials than makers did back in the '60s. It is entirely possible that you could buy a $300 Marlin or Ruger American and find it is clearly more accurate than your 50 year old Remington 700. It will have plastic parts and a synthetic stock and will not be highly polished and deeply blued and won't include a lot of the stuff that gun guys like to call "quality" ... but it will probably shoot like crazy.

If you like your Remington for what it is, as it is, and it shoots well enough for your needs/wants, keep it. If you're going to replace the stock anyway, the balance of whether it makes more sense to keep it or buy something else starts to shift. If you're going to have to replace the barrel to get it shooting to your desired standard, the balance shifts farther. You can have that Remington rebuilt into an amazing rifle -- actually, you can have it built into any of lots of different patterns of amazing rifles, from ultra-light mountain hunter, to precision long-range gun, to "tactical" tool, to competition gun, to ...anything you like. But that's adding a lot of cost, and if you really just want a fresh new hunting rifle that will come with a "MOA" accuracy guarantee, you can easily get that for very little money these days.

There's no easy answer to your question. :)
Click to expand...
Exactly what I was thinking. Just our modern day engineering and machining could make it easier to produce higher quality guns. But, sounds like most people think this gun will perform as good as any $400 gun I could pick up off the shelf.
 
Exactly what I was thinking. Just our modern day engineering and machining could make it easier to produce higher quality guns.
Click to expand...
It all depends on what YOU consider a mark of "quality." For some people, quality means hand-fitting. Modern CNC milling makes it so that isn't required. For some people quality means beautiful bluing and hand-finished walnut. But synthetic stocks and modern super-finishes are better in many ways than the beautiful old, fragile finishes and materials. For some, the bank-vault lockup of a hand-fit action is the mark of quality, but when a CNC machine can hold tolerances to thousandths of an inch or better, and designs are now engineered to make the most of that ability, the hand-fitting is irrelevant.

But, sounds like most people think this gun will perform as good as any $400 gun I could pick up off the shelf.
Click to expand...
Back 20, 30, 40, 50+ years ago, few guns came from the major factories able to shoot groups much under 2" or so at 100 yds. If you wanted to shoot clover-leaf groups you found a gunsmith who could strip your rifle down and work magic on it. And most owners didn't much care because shots in the field are usually at decently large game and usually well within 200 yds.

Now, a decent number of cheap guns are guaranteed to cut that in half (or better!), right out of the box. A lot more shooters spend their shooting time at the rifle bench trying to shoot small groups, so that's what they care about.

What will your 700 do? What do you want it to do?
 
I just want accuracy, to me it will be a hunting gun. As long as I can hit deer vitals at 300 yards im happy
 
Others have touched on this already, but I'll add to the noise. Shoot the rifle with the ammo you'll use, be that handloads or a chosen factory load. If it's accurate enough for you, keep it. It's paid for and a known quantity.

I've traded off a lot of rifles over the years, but always to upgrade. It would be a shame to let a good rifle go for one that isn't any better and quite possibly not as good.

While it's true that most factory rifles of that vintage are capable of about 2 MOA accuracy and we all strive for the magical sub-MOA, the reality is that most shooters aren't capable of out-shooting the rifle. In other words, a two MOA rifle is superb when all you need is three MOA to hit the vitals on a deer at 200 yards.
 
"Is a 50 year old gun going to perform as well as a new gun?"

Probably better.
Click to expand...

Nostalgia is a wonderful thing, but if you consider rifles just a tool to be used then don't let it color your thinking. But on to a few facts:

Metallurgy is much more advanced and consistent in 2015 than it was in the 60's
Machining is much better in 2015 than it was in the 60's

A 60's vintage Remington 700 is just another mass produced item, really nothing special about them. Go back and read some of the test reports on rifles back in the day, most seemed to think a 2" 100 yard gun was excellent. A 60's vintage Remington Is likely to be better than one produced during the dark days of the 70's and 80's, but I don't think it's likely to be as good as a current production Savage, Ruger, etc.

Now if you were talking about a 60's vintage Mannlicher Schoenauer, or a high grade Mauser, that would be a different kettle of fish as they say.
 
There's no sense selling it. Even if the barrel isn't up to par, it'll cost less to have a high-end replacement barrel from ER Shaw installed than to buy a new gun. Then the rifle would shoot even BETTER than new. They'll even install it for you, so you don't have to worry about sourcing a gunsmith, and you can even change calibers while you're at it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Need some info hunting rifles and caliber choice
Replies
22
Views
791
sig220mw
S
H
  • Locked
Is a new Remington 700 safe to buy?
2 3
Replies
57
Views
8K
Uncle Mike
U
M
  • Locked
Rem700, Savage or Ruger???
Replies
14
Views
715
Mr. Chitlin
M
B
  • Locked
Are these good deer rifles? Should I keep them?
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
achildofthesky
A
S
  • Locked
Need Remington 700 help!!!!
Replies
7
Views
395
saskboy
S
Back
Top