Remington 700P LTR vs 700 XCR Compact Tactical - What's the Difference?

[JNewell]

The new 700 XCR Compact Tactical looks like it's essentially a clone of the 700P LTR. They weigh the same, have 20" fluted heavy barrels. The LTR stock is HS Precision while according to something I read on the Remington website the XCR Compact Tactical is a Bell & Carlson stock, but the profiles are very similar and both have an aluminum bedding block. The XCR appears to have a better factory trigger (the 40-X trigger). So, other than a few other differences like metal finish and stock finish - and distribution through "regular" distributors instead of the LE distributors, can anyone point out differences between these two rifles?

 

[Lovesbeer99]

I'd like to know this also. Any one? Little help?

 

[pgeleven]

im assuming most of the guts are the same, but id guess its only differences are:
stock color
XCR has a thicker recoil pad
XCR has a fluted barrel, and that PVD coating stuff

im sure theres a few other minor differences that make it so they can justify a $1,400 MSRP

 

[Lovesbeer99]

JNewell - why not just call Remington and ask?

 

[skinewmexico]

One is "TACTICAL"!!!!! That's good for a sale of several thousand rifles. I'll bet they shoot the same sized groups.

 

[Triple S]

I am really interested in both of these rifles. I have convinced myself that I want a "tacticool" 20" bbl. Remington 700 in .223 with a 1/9" twist for plinking, targets, "truck gun", and to use for some hunting. Bottom line, i just like the idea of a heavy 20" bbl .223. Keep us posted on your findings.

 

[EShell]

Both are "tactical", "LTR" stands for "Light Tactical Rifle".

FWIW, the bottom rifle in the pic above is a PSS/PS, recognizable by the broad forend and pronounced palm swell.

 

[JNewell]

Ed, the picture on the bottom is linked from the Remington LE website and is an LTR.

SgtB, both have fluted barrels.

The LTRs I have seen all had a recoil pad that was much more like the one on the top than the one in the picture on the bottom, so that's not a difference.

As far as I can see, they're basically the same rifle, and I agree with SkiNewMexico that they probably shoot the same groups. My LTR does 5-shot groups at 100 yards with a low power scope that run under 1/2" and would in fact be one ragged hole except that I always manage to pull one of the 5. The rifle is better than the operator.

 

[YodaVader]

Ed, the picture on the bottom is linked from the Remington LE website and is an LTR.

I have also seen the same pic on their site and it is not accurate regarding the current production LTRs. I have .223 LTR a few years old and the stock profile on it looks the same as the XCR picture above. Does yours have the stock like in their picture?

My LTR does 5-shot groups at 100 yards with a low power scope that run under 1/2" and would in fact be one ragged hole except that I always manage to pull one of the 5.

My LTR is the most accurate factory rifle that I have ever fired. Good to hear yours is a shooter too.

 

[EShell]

Ed, the picture on the bottom is linked from the Remington LE website and is an LTR.

I have also seen the same pic on their site and it is not accurate regarding the current production LTRs. I have .223 LTR a few years old and the stock profile on it looks the same as the XCR picture above. Does yours have the stock like in their picture?

Agreed, YodaVader . . . LOL, you'd think marketing would read what they wrote once in awhile.

Hi JNewell, yes sir, I do realize the pic came from Remington's site, and while the bottom rifle is surely labeled "LTR", it's still a PSS, which has the 26" barrel and stock as pictured and as described in my post above.

This is my (genuine) LTR:

My LTR does 5-shot groups at 100 yards with a low power scope that run under 1/2" and would in fact be one ragged hole except that I always manage to pull one of the 5.

My LTR is the most accurate factory rifle that I have ever fired. Good to hear yours is a shooter too.

My own .308 LTR shoots great too, and really likes FGMM 168s, though I shoot a lot at near sea level density altitude and I have to go to 175s to remain stable past about 800-900 yards.

Several of the guys I shoot long with run .308 PSSs and most of those are tack drivers too. They all seem designed around the FGMM 168s, and if they won't shoot those, they'll usually shoot the Black Hills loading of the 168 SMK. . .In my experience, the M-700 tactical series is much more reliably accurate than their hunting line, including the various "varmint" incarnations, which all seem rather "hit & miss".

I'm a bit of an M-700 addict, and everything to the left of the AR-10 is a 700 of one flavor or another, most customs. The pink one is my baby girl's tac rifle, a fast twist .243 built on an LTR.

 

[nwilliams]

I have an LTR and I really like it, I have no experience with the XCR so I can't compare the two.

Here's mine with Nikon scope...

 

[Triple S]

ESHELL....Tell us more about your rifle and scope combinations you have in the picture. I as well am a "fanatic" about heavy barrel 700's and AR's.

 

[JNewell]

Hullo Ed, all...

Hi JNewell, yes sir, I do realize the pic came from Remington's site, and while the bottom rifle is surely labeled "LTR", it's still a PSS, which has the 26" barrel and stock as pictured and as described in my post above.

To my eye, honestly, that looks proportionately like a 20" barrel. You may be right; if you are, my eyes are in more trouble than I thought. There are other problems with the picture, such as the recoil pad being incorrect (as in, missing).

My own .308 LTR shoots great too, and really likes FGMM 168s, though I shoot a lot at near sea level density altitude and I have to go to 175s to remain stable past about 800-900 yards.

Several of the guys I shoot long with run .308 PSSs and most of those are tack drivers too. They all seem designed around the FGMM 168s

Funny you should mention that - mine shoots the Federal 168 gr Gold Medal Match best, too, so your comment about that being a design goal could well be right. I have never tried handloading .308 for this rifle because I doubt I could improve anything. At least not with the current scope. I intentionally mounted a relatively low-power scope (Leupold VX-III 1.75-6x), so even dialed all the way up it's not exactly a sniper set-up...might manage slightly tighter groups with higher magnification, not sure.

Mine is one of the early DM models that got lots of criticism, but I've never had a feeding problem as long as the magazine was properly latched in the front. In general, however, I load it as if it were a BDL, and unloading is usually just firing until it's empty.

Here's a question for you. I keep thinking I should either replace or at least adjust the factory trigger, but it shoots so well that I figure I shouldn't tempt fate by removing the stock and either replacing or adjusting the factory trigger. Any opinion on that? I am probably being at best unnecessarily cautious, but too many times I've fiddled around thinking I'd improve something and found I'd take several steps backwards instead...

 

[EShell]

ESHELL....Tell us more about your rifle and scope combinations you have in the picture. I as well am a "fanatic" about heavy barrel 700's and AR's.

Left to right:
M-700 LA 6.5-300 Weatherby, 29" Hart barrel, Leupold 6.5-20x50 (Sid Goodling)
M-700 SA .22-250, 25" Hart Barrel, Leupold 6.5-20x50 (RW & PJ Hart)
M-700 LA 6.5-284, 26" Bartlein barrel. NF NXS 5.5-22x50 (GA Precision)
M-700 SA .260, 26" Broughton barrel, NF NXS 5.5-22x50 (GA Precision)
M-700 SA .308, 26" Rem sewer pipe (but roll marked like an actual barrel), NF NXS 3.5-15x50 (OEM+/-VS)
M-700 LA .30-06 AI, 24" Shilen barrel, Leupold 3.5-10x40 (Bennett Customs)
M-700 SA .243, 24" Schneider barrel, Leupold 4.5-14x40 (GA Precision)
M-700 SA .308, 20" Rem barrel, Leupold 4.5-14x50 (OEM+/-LTR)
AR-10 .308, 20" Armalite barrel, Leupold 3.5-10x40 (OEM Armalite)
AR-15 .223, 20" Douglas barrel, Leupold MK4 10x40, Colt lower, RRA trigger & upper, Bushmaster float tube & gas block (FrankenColt)
AR-15 .223, 20" Colt barrel, Leupold 3.5-10x50 (OEM Colt)
10/22 .22LR, 20" AAC "Cloak" barrel, Leupold 3-9x32 EFR (suppressed FrankenRuger)
10/22 .22LR, 18" (old) "Midway" barrel, Leupold 4.5-14x40 AO (target barreled FrankenRuger)

To my eye, honestly, that looks proportionately like a 20" barrel. You may be right; if you are, my eyes are in more trouble than I thought. There are other problems with the picture, such as the recoil pad being incorrect (as in, missing).

Your eyes are fine and likely better than those of Remington's marketing people.

The forend of the HS Precision made Rem PSS stock pictured is slightly longer than the standard HS Precision made Rem VS forend, making the barrel seem even shorter, and the HS VS stock has a longer forend than the LTR, being nearly midway in length between the LTR and PSS.

If you compare the buttplate/trigger guard positions, then look at the barrels, you'll see what I mean.The two rifles in your pic are positioned similarly and correctly proportioned to each other, and if you compare the ejection port positions (barrel origin points) in your pic, the extra 6" of barrel length of the bottom (PSS) rifle becomes apparent.

Funny you should mention that - mine shoots the Federal 168 gr Gold Medal Match best, too, so your comment about that being a design goal could well be right. I have never tried handloading .308 for this rifle because I doubt I could improve anything.

LOL, same here, my LTR is one of the very few I DON"T load for. Eventaully, I would like to find a good load using the Lapua 155 Scenar, which has a similar BC to the 175 SMK, but can be driven up to 200 fps faster, with resulting substantially better long range drop/drift figures.

At least not with the current scope. I intentionally mounted a relatively low-power scope (Leupold VX-III 1.75-6x), so even dialed all the way up it's not exactly a sniper set-up...might manage slightly tighter groups with higher magnification, not sure.

I had that 4.5-14x40 that's on my daughter's .243 on my LTR (before I somehow got talked out of it) and IMHO, it was *perfect* for that gun. I've had one of the 3.5-10s on it, and it felt pretty good, but I ended up wanting more magnification.

Here's a question for you. I keep thinking I should either replace or at least adjust the factory trigger, but it shoots so well that I figure I shouldn't tempt fate by removing the stock and either replacing or adjusting the factory trigger. Any opinion on that?

The OEM trigger pull can be adjusted to render a very good pull, and a good 'smith can polish the parts to *really* make it nice. Even a skilled hobbyist can make a big improvement if caution is applied. IMHO, leave the engagement screw completely alone and don't set the pull weight below about 2-1/2#. Here is a decent tutorial:http://www.snipersparadise.com/articles/adjusting_the_rem_700_trigger.htm
Here is another set of instructions with a decent pic, but IMO, just use the pic for reference. The pull can be improved quite a bit while still leaving engagement screw alone. http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/Remingtontriggers.asp

I am probably being at best unnecessarily cautious, but too many times I've fiddled around thinking I'd improve something and found I'd take several steps backwards instead...

While I too subscribe to the theory that "if it's not broke, don't fix it", the Remington triggers are usually set massively high and there is definitely safe room for improvement.

As for taking it in and out of the stock, IMHO, don't sweat it. Just make sure the recoil lug is bottomed out toward the rear (stand the rifle on it's buttplate to start snugging up the screws) and that your action screws are evenly torqued. I torque my OEM bottom metal to 50 *inch* pounds and my Badger aftermarket bottom metal to 65 *inch* pounds. I have several extra HS short action stocks, including a PSS stock, two LTR stocks and a VS stock that I have swapped my LTR action around in and eventually put it back into an LTR stock and the accuracy and point of impact was never affected, only the handling and feel.

The consensus is that the HS stocks with their aluminum bedding blocks shoot well as is and even better when skim bedded, but I haven't bothered with skim bedding mine. The only rifles in the above pic that are bedded are the 10/22s (barrel channels) and the .30-06AI. If you did elect to bed your's, once you do, I would then suggest trying to leave it together to maintain the best fit.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Left to right:
M-700 LA 6.5-300 Weatherby, 29" Hart barrel, Leupold 6.5-20x50 (Sid Goodling)
M-700 SA .22-250, 25" Hart Barrel, Leupold 6.5-20x50 (RW & PJ Hart)
M-700 LA 6.5-284, 26" Bartlein barrel. NF NXS 5.5-22x50 (GA Precision)
M-700 SA .260, 26" Broughton barrel, NF NXS 5.5-22x50 (GA Precision)
M-700 SA .308, 26" Rem sewer pipe (but roll marked like an actual barrel), NF NXS 3.5-15x50 (OEM+/-VS)
M-700 LA .30-06 AI, 24" Shilen barrel, Leupold 3.5-10x40 (Bennett Customs)
M-700 SA .243, 24" Schneider barrel, Leupold 4.5-14x40 (GA Precision)
M-700 SA .308, 20" Rem barrel, Leupold 4.5-14x50 (OEM+/-LTR)
AR-10 .308, 20" Armalite barrel, Leupold 3.5-10x40 (OEM Armalite)
AR-15 .223, 20" Douglas barrel, Leupold MK4 10x40, Colt lower, RRA trigger & upper, Bushmaster float tube & gas block (FrankenColt)
AR-15 .223, 20" Colt barrel, Leupold 3.5-10x50 (OEM Colt)
10/22 .22LR, 20" AAC "Cloak" barrel, Leupold 3-9x32 EFR (suppressed FrankenRuger)
10/22 .22LR, 18" (old) "Midway" barrel, Leupold 4.5-14x40 AO (target barreled FrankenRuger)

Dang, man, nice stuff. What exactly is a "Remington sewer pipe"?

 

[EShell]

Thank you.

What exactly is a "Remington sewer pipe"?

A graphic description of the barrels' interior surfaces as viewed with my bore scope and it's demonstrated range performance . . . my expectations of factory guns aren't all that high, but this one was fugly in every way.

I replaced this relatively new barrel myself last week with a short-chambered ER Shaw equivalent that I fell into a deal on, finished the chamber with a PTG Palma '95 reamer and actually saw improvement . . .

 

[YodaVader]

EShell , very impressive collection! A lot of quality barrels you have. Is there one that has proven to be the most accurate? I might have a 700 rebarreled one of these days myself.

 

[EShell]

Thank you YodaVader, but, damn, that's a tough question you've asked . . .

IMHO, given a "good" barrel, absolute accuracy capability depends a LOT on how the gun is throated, which will depend on application.

The 6.5-300Wby/Hart was built by a 1,000 yd BR specialist, and it has a "tight neck" for best precision. I have to neck turn my cases and run about .0015" clearance on each side. In spite of it's huge overbore design and extreme velocities (a 140 at 3,400), I have had quite a few 1/4 moa groups with it, well enough to say it's a 1/4 minute gun. The downside is that I cannot exceed about 20 shots without cleaning, or my pressures climb due to fouling in the ball seat area. The .22-250 was also done with a "minimum" neck, but not so tight I need to neck turn my brass, and it seems to shoot factory ammo well. It's getting "tired" now, but, for the longest time, it shot to 1/4 moa with certain loads. Both of these guns were initially set up a BR guns, both have Hart barrels and both were built at a time when there were far fewer competition quality barrels out there and Hart dominated the BR top ten list. Today, there are MANY good barrels.

Oddly enough, as well as these Harts shot, the first barrel I had on the 6.5-284 was a Hart and it never shot better than 1/2 moa, but it was set up by Chandler/IBA in similar fashion to a fail-safe combat rifle and the throat was "generous" . . .

Most of the others (6.5-284, .260 & .243) are designed for tactical matches, where we will leave the vehicle in the morning with a backpack and the day's supplies and cannot clean all day. We will shoot a hundred rounds or more between cleanings, and so by necessity, the throats are cut with more clearance to prevent dangerous pressures when fouling accumulates. Even so, they deliver 3/8 moa or better.

The .30-06 AI is primarily a hunting rifle and the Shilen barrel is throated larger, probably around the lower third of SAAMI tolerances. In this respect, the LTR is similar, and both share the tendency to shoot the tangent ogive bullets better (like SMKs and Nosler BTs) and neither are particularly accurate with secant ogive bullets like Berger VLDs. Both of these rifles shoot to around 1/2 moa with bullets they like.

I really like the way the Schneider broke in and cleans, and Broughton was very similar in this regard. I only have about 100 through the Bartlein so far, and it shot well from the beginning. My shooting partner has a Krieger .300WinMag that has shot 1/4 to 3/8 moa for more than 2,000 rounds. . .

The match grade barrels these days are VERY nice, and I have become tired of micro-managing this choice. The last few custom guns I had built or refreshed were by George at GA Precision. I told George what I wanted to use them for and what bullet I was hoping to shoot, and left the barrel choice to him. Evidently, he can't decide either, because they've all been by different makers ans still shoot great.

On one of my match guns, I would be quite satisfied to use a barrel by Bartlein, Broughton, Krieger, Lilja, Hart, Schneider, even Shilen, and I'm sure there are other very good barrels I'm not familiar with.

I'd be more concerned about who actually did the work and if I wasn't thinking I'd be running a hundred a day through one, I'd keep it at an SAAMI minimum throat and expect it to shoot to 3/8 moa or better, about as well as I can shoot from a bipod. I don't like neck turning and the whole fitted neck thing, so I wouldn't go for the sub-SAAMI diameter that is necessary in benchrest.

IMHO, ER Shaw is a budget grade hunting rifle barrel. Had I not stumbled into a very good buy on one that was destined to be my first home done rebarrel project, I would not consider it for a precision rifle. Since I didn't want to botch a nice barrel, and the barrel I was replacing shot so poorly anyway, the budget barrel was natural choice. The project worked out so well, I'm now sorry I didn't just spring for a nicer tube, LOL, and wonder how it might have shot.

 

[JNewell]

Quite a good thread!

Roger on the inch pounds. I keep thinking those pre-set torque wrenches from Brownells are interesting, but even with the FFL discount, they're kinda pricey.

Back to the original question - the police 870s get some separate and somewhat better finishing operations and have a few different parts than the run of the mill 870s. Do you, Ed, or does anyone else, know whether that's true of the PSS rifles?

Note to self: I should call Remington LE and ask. Years ago I spoke with the gentleman who ran the division, or a part of it at any rate, and he was extremely helpful with a few questions on the LTR. I should give it a try...

 

[lotus]

My Rem LTR (.308) is a fantastic shooter straight from the factory. I thought for sure I'd have to rebarrel & bed it but I don't want to mess with it's mojo. Shoots 0.5 MOA or better with hand loads.

 

[Horsemany]

EShell

Where'd you get the cheek pad/fanny pack things on the buttstocks? I'd like one and I've never seen that style before. I always have odds and ends I'd like to keep with the gun and that looks perfect.

 

[dogma512]

I'm trying to summarize this thread in my head. Is the censuses that on average the .308 700p LTR (part #5739) is more accurate than the 26" barreled .308 700p (part #5709)?

 

[EShell]

Back to the original question - the police 870s get some separate and somewhat better finishing operations and have a few different parts than the run of the mill 870s. Do you, Ed, or does anyone else, know whether that's true of the PSS rifles?

Barrel aside, the parts on the 700p series are the same as the rest of their 700 like. They may use nicer barrels, or at least use specially selected barrels. There may be differences in the machine work, or again, a selection process that sets better actions, bolts, etc. aside for these rifles. In any event, I firmly believe one can expect consistently better accuracy from these tac rifles than Rem's other offerings designed for sport.

The finish itself is a matte bead blast with what they call a "metal oxide" finish. Other than it's low glare characteristics, it is not particularly better and doesn't seem to resist rust as well as some other finishes, but I suspect that the intent of the finish is much like Parkerization, which is designed more to do a better job of holding oil than resisting corrosion itself.

EShell

Where'd you get the cheek pad/fanny pack things on the buttstocks? I'd like one and I've never seen that style before. I always have odds and ends I'd like to keep with the gun and that looks perfect.

Those are "Eagle" stock packs. They are marketed by Eagle Industries (http://www.eagleindustries.com/) and I buy mine from Steve at Triad Tactical, a discounter of Eagle and other gear (http://triadtactical.com/store/category/e54l/Weapon_Accessories.html. They provide about 1/4 to 3/8" added comb height and can be padded up even further if needed by applying stick-on HVAC foam (1/4" x 2" wide foam tape) to the underside or using felt padding. I use the pocket to contain a 3x5 Rite-In-The-Rain notepad with my drop and wind data for various elevations (air densities). It would also fit a Twinkie. The cartridge loops are a good spot to tuck extra rounds for speed drills, but I don't like keeping ammo there, due to risk of loss while humping the rifle slung.

BlackHawk markets a similar product, perhaps a direct copy, but, the m,aterial against one's cheek is "HawkTex" and it has a reputation for being sticky when damp, and it yank's one's skin in hot weather. Both companies subcontract these products offshore, and now, there is a cheap Chicom copy at Cheaper Than Dirt (but just as nasty) that is not very good and I'd recommending avoiding this one too.

I'm trying to summarize this thread in my head. Is the censuses that on average the .308 700p LTR (part #5739) is more accurate than the 26" barreled .308 700p (part #5709)?

IMHO, more so that both the LTR and 700P are more "consistently" accurate than the Varmint Special, SPS, ADL and BDL. By "consistently", I mean that the average off-the-shelf example will have better odds of delivering the best accuracy. I have had VSs and BDLs shoot as well, but, it's been one in ten to deliver this level of accuracy, while the rest are mediocre at best. With the LTR and 700P, it's more like one in fifty that *won't* shoot and odds are very good of getting a good shooter first try.

I think the LTR and 700 P are both typically quite accurate, most shoot 1/2 moa or better, BUT, this performance is more surprising from the light, short and handy LTR and so it gets mentioned more often. The bigger and heavier 700P is more expected to deliver good and stable accuracy, and so no one really raves about what they expected all along. . . Of these two, I would choose which rifle to get based on how I'd use it. Longer ranges favor the better ballistics of the 700P's longer barrel, while shorter ranges and longer carries favor the enhanced portability of the LTR.

 

[glockman19]

Ed,

Beautiful Collection.

 

[dogma512]

Hi Ed,

Your expertise is a fantastic resource for us inexperienced folks. I've been thinking about getting a 700p/700p LTR for a couple of months now as my first real "precision" rifle. I'd only use it prone or on a bench with a bipod so weight isn't a significant concern. So my driving factor is accuracy out to about 600m (I don't have access to a 1000yd range - if I did I'd be thinking about 300win mag). For all I knew/know the LTR could be more accurate due to better barrel harmonics (or something). The other big driver for me is being able to use of the shelf ammo which is what pushed me towards a 700p to begin with. I'm leaning towards the LTR with thoughts of getting a magnum 26" down the road someday.

Do you think the LTR is up to snuff for 600m or will the shorter barrel really hurt the ballistics at that range?