Remington 700 vs 788

[R.W.Dale]

After all these years I've found myself in temporary possession (scope mounting & sight in for a family member) of a remington 788. Now I've always known about these but this is the first time I've gotten my hands on one up close.

For an entry level gun I'm astounded by the fit finish and just how this rifle is built and engineered. So much so I'm STAGGERED that this rifle was discontinued in favor of retaining the rather crude by comparison Remington 700

Why would Remington do this? and if the 700 had gone the way of the DoDo instead of the 788 where would this platform be today? My only theory is that big green is a slave to the Remington 700's past success and notoriety and that they fear a "new coke" style backlash if any changes are made, even if for the better.

What say ye O great and wise THR?

 

[mshootnit]

I think folks mostly just thought they were very plain and kind of ugly. That may have contributed to slow sales. Now I will say this: my dad has been into reloading for accuracy since the early 70's and he still says his old 788 in 223 was the best rifle he ever had. Incidently he now has 788's in 243, 308, 22-250 and maybe more. They may be the most accurate LIGHT production rifle made, and certainly are so in there price range. They were and are outstanding rifles.

 

[berettashotgun]

They never came with a" NICE " stock by any stretch of the imagination.
I bought mine for $99.99 at Otasco in the late 70's -early 80's. 223, 22-250, 243, 7mm-08, 308 and a 375 H&H
Wish I'd gotten the 30-30 and 44 while I was at it.
I think a 788 is an excellent rifle, but that machined bolt coupled with the removable single stack magazine would be in the Browning price range today. I think they are overpriced, but, that's me. I do like my 788's & A-Bolt.
Bolt flex or compression is a little over thought on this fancy internet; never had a problem with a NON benchrest rifle performing LIKE a bench rifle.
I wish Remmy would have offered it in a 22 hornet - but I "wish" Beretta would offer a 28ga semi. I'm not holding my breath.
I'm glad they went with the 700.
If we took a different fork in the road of time - we might actually have a nice stock available for the 788.

 

[don]

I've had a 788 and a 700. IMO there is no comparison. The 700 was far superior to the 788. The bolt handle on the 788 came off and extraction with the 788 was extremely hard with factory loads. The caliber was 22-250. The trigger was abysmal. The only good thing I can say about my 788 was that the action was extremely strong. I cannot speak for others,but this was my experience.

 

[rangerruck]

the 788 was labor intensive, and very expensive to make; many say the bolt handle was a prob; well , I suppose if you tried to smack it open really, really hard.
and the wood is so so. But the accuracy is way above good, and the triggers- despite the above poster, was one of the best factory triggers ever made, with a grotesquely fast locktime. Accuracy was enhanced by the 9 lug lock up to the rear, which made for a super straight and tight entry of the cart, into the chamber. Other dudes will say these have probs with high pressure/strong rounds, that overtime will cave in the bolt face a bit; I dunno about that- I don't do enough benchrest comps to find out about that. However i do shoot it a lot, and hunt with it, and paper punch with it, and it is a 1 hole punch with a variety of ammo, even the cheap stuff. Mine is a 243 by the by; and the 13 dollar blue box feddy shoots as good as the vld bullets I have.
the amount of origionality and personality these have, far exceed the 700's. Especially the Leggo Land big rear step site, and the giant front sharkfin site, which you will never see ever again , anywhere. The origional mags alone are worth about 50 bucks each, for a normal caliber, and go up from there, for the rare cals.
I redid the wood on mine to a nice light honey color, to bring about a bit more of the figuring to see; I have decided this is the one rifle i keep, and it goes in the box with me, unless Jesus comes back first...

 

[rangerruck]

Remmy had an eeville plan at the time; they went after the entry level hard, to push out Savage and Mossberg, and any others. They did it with this rifle, and they sold them cheap. By the time they were done, mossy was pretty much out of the rifle business, and Savage was barely hanging on. Then remmy discontinued the 788, and replaced it with the 700, that is after the 700 was made, but peeps kept buying the788 instead.
So they cut it out alltogether, and sold just the more expensive, but easier to make 700.
Savage finally came back, but it took them quite a while to rebuild their reputation, and make some good rifles that could compete with remmy, and mossberg really just in the last 5 years or so, started to make boltie centerfires again, and now their new lever, which is a copy of the old winny, and very good I might add...

 

[Dr T]

My 6mm Rem 788 is one of the most consistently accurate rifles I own. With the right load (with the now-discontinued 100 gr Nosler solid base), it will shoot into 0.5 MOA all day if I do my part.

I have found that it does handle maximum pressure loads as well as would a 700. I could not get within 2 gr. of some of the loads listed as Maximum in Ken Water's "Pet Loads." I suspect that the lugs at the rear allow the bolt to flex between the case head and the lugs. The 700 does not have this issue.

The finish on mine went soft after about five years, so I stripped the stock and gave it an oil finish. I also took off the cheap plastic rib and iron sights and filled the holes with the plugs that came in the scope mounting holes.

The rumor I heard was not that it was expensive to produce, but that Remington killed it because it was more accurate than the 700.

I also have a 22 LR on the same basic real lock action (tubular magazine, model 582?) that will shoot into 1 inch at 100 yards with the right ammo when there is no wind.

 

[rangerruck]

rib vent? and you took that off? you took something off of a rifle, that i never new the model even had... a vent rib. Are you sure you don't have a model 600/660/mohawk? for sure those had some vent ribs, but I cannot say about the 788. Would seem to me to about up the value of a 788 by about 1.5 to 2 times for a full vent rib. Does your bolt handle have a dogleg bend in it?
like this one? because this is a 600...
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=159559935#PIC

 

[d2wing]

The 788 did not come before the 700 but in addition to as a low price model to compete with the really cheap Savage 340.
It was only a short action model. They were not as nice looking as the 700
and not made in the more popular .270 and 30-06 version. If I recall, Remington expanded the 700 line to Sportsman, ADL, BDL and model 7 when they dropped the 788. The public mostly thought the 700 was the best commercial action and the best bases for a custom rifle. I always thought my 788 was very accurate but a target shooter told me it was the best action out of the box at the time.

 

[Dr T]

It was not a vented rib--just a plastic rib that the rear site was fitted on.

 

[Hangingrock]

The 788 labor intensive to manufacture I question that. The 788 was and is an economy grade rifle. The rear multiple lug locking arrangement employed was not problematic in my example chambered in 308 Winchester. In general the 788 had a stellar reputation for accuracy.

 

[Jim Watson]

I really like my .223 788 and my .30-30 has its points.
There is a debunking type article that gives good and bad points at:
http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh/788.html

You may not agree, especially if you have shot a lot of hot reloaded .243s out of one and not seen "bolt compression" but it is a place to start.

Ken Waters was of the opinion that his Rigby Mauser 7x61 Sharpe & Hart was preferable to the very well made but rear locking Schultz & Larsen. citing another author on the subject in Pet Loads.

 

[Hangingrock]

If one is knowledgeable about the design then one realizes the limitations of the design. I never attempted to make the 308 Winchester more that what it was and is. With that said bolt compression and case stretching was not a problematic condition in my example chambered in 308 Winchester. I always checked my cases externally and internally for the separation ring.

I witnessed headspace issues more so in early example of the Springfield Armory M-1A then I did with the previously mentioned Remington 788. The M1A was returned to Springfield Armory for correction.

 

[W.E.G.]

The 788 competed with the company's own product, the 700.

It costs more to produce two different types of rifles, only to achieve a fixed quantity of sales.
Evidently, Remington made a business decision to maintain the 700 line.
Remember, they got rid of the quirky 600 line too. I've always admired the comely and compact lines of the short-action 600.

The 788 is a very fine rifle, and it represents an important piece of American firearms history. I had a 788, in 6mm Rem., that I acquired N.I.B. in the 70's in a trade for a very clean Ruger Security Six. I traded the still-very-clean 788 along with a 90's-era Remington 7400, plus $100 to a gun store for a N.I.B. Browning stainless A-Bolt. I don't miss that 7400 one bit. I really like the Browning, and I'll never part with it. But I sure do miss the 788.

Enjoy your 788, but don't resent the 700. Lots of nice 700's out there too.

 

[rangerruck]

Jim watson; thanks for that tag; I have read that article before, but forgot where it was!!! The only real flaw in it I see, is that Timney makes an excellent drop in trigger pac for it. Also it was good to see, that I wasn't the only one who believed these were expensive to make due to tooling/design costs.

 

[Offfhand]

Labor intensive? Expensive to make? Replaced by 700? Only on the internet do we get such insights.

 

[rangerruck]

did you read the post above, with the link?

 

[Offfhand]

Yep, laughted at that one too. As I said, only on the internet can such gems on "information" flourish.

 

[rangerruck]

I still say you are wrong... here are some more articles on the lots of machinery usage to make these. That equates to labor intensive to me...
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Remington_788

not too mention it could not have been too bad a rifle, since they took the same action/receiver, and made several rifles off of it; 580, 581, 582, 590, 591, 592,
and a target and military trainer mods.

 

[Offfhand]

"here are some more articles on the lots of machinery usage to make these. That equates to labor intensive to me..."
Still laughing, but now I understand your confusion. Read your post again, or from wherever you got it. Machinery usage means parts made by machines. Labor intensive means hands-on work.. They are direct opposites. Machine work is cheaper, labor intensive is more expensive. Grasp this concept and it becomes more understandable.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Appearantly offhand has never heard of the profession of "machinist". A very highly paid profession at that. Back when these rifles were made said machines did not run or supply themselves. If there was precice maching of parts taking place there was a highly skilled craftsman turning dials and flipping switches.

The 788. Had 9 locking lugs precicely machined onto the bolt. The 700's bolt is a piece of pipe with a head and handle soldered on each end.Which do you think was faster and took fewer man hours to do?

 

[wyohome]

only on the internet can such gems on "information" flourish.

Indeed.

 

[Hangingrock]

Back when these rifles were made said machines did not run or supply themselves. If there was precice maching of parts taking place there was a highly skilled craftsman turning dials and flipping switches.

There are machinists and there are machine operators. Most likely with manual screw machines there was a set up machinist. After the set up was completed a machine operator monitored the operation. Screw machines have morphed into CNC machining centers.

The bolt of a 788 from a machining point of view is not difficult item to produce.

Most engineers’/ designers today interact with production engineers to obtain the best manufacturing process.

 

[NCsmitty]

The 788. Had 9 locking lugs precisely machined onto the bolt.

I'm not bashing the 788, as I think they were a wonderfully accurate budget rifle.

I worked at the Remington Arms in Ilion, NY for nearly 6 years in the late 60's and early 70's. I worked in the shotgun fabricating section, and ran many different machines, doing many different operations mainly on the 1100, and 870 lines and occasional 11-48 and Sportsman 58 runs.
I considered myself a machine operator, not a machinist, as I received no formal training, but I was conscientious and always eager to learn new things and had the ability to learn.

I do know that the 788 had little issues such as less than 100% locking lug engagement. It was very difficult to match the bolt lugs to the action lugs, and if you inspect a 788's lugs you will usually see that some lugs show more engagement wear than others in the set. This was before the heavy use of CNC took over in the plant.
I never owned a 788, as I regarded the 700 as a superior firearm, but I knew many who did and never heard of any that wasn't accurate.



NCsmitty

 

[Hangingrock]

I do know that the 788 had little issues such as less than 100% locking lug engagement.

That’s correct but the model 700 series rifles I had never were in 100% contact either unless lapped in place.