Remington 710

[45Guy]

I own a 710 that I picked up as my first deer rifle when I was 16, looking to get rid of it. For some reason in order to lock the bolt back in to battery after the shot I have to almost smack the bolt down. Scope comes loose after 3 shots. Not a great rifle, but oh well, it filled the void. Now to sell it and add on to the AR.

 

[Nathanael_Greene]

It's amazing how well-made some of those 60's-early 70's "department store" guns are. Walnut stocks, fine bluing, and the same actions as their name-brand cousins.

If you can find one that's had any kind of care, it'll probably be cheap and a rifle that'll last a lifetime.

I've never owned a Remington 710 and never will, but I don't think anyone will ever say that they plan on handing one down to their grandchildren.

 

[Ash]

Yeah, that's their lure. Amazing, isn't it, that a storebrand rifle, considered the blue-collar gun, would have a hinged floor-plate, deep bluing, iron sights (and mine have Williams flip-down rear sights that are fully adjustable for windage, from the factory that way!) walnut stock, sling swivels not just studs, and pistol grip caps. The only thing "cheap" about them was impressed checkering. Yet, check out a good Remington 1187 or 870 and guess what, impressed checkering!

The 710 rifle would not have survived in the 1960's. Nobody would have one. Yet, the Remington 700 ADL, or any rifle today with a blind magazine, would not have been considered either. Modern day matte black finishes wouldn't have been tollerated either. We have sunk so far in the art of the rifle.

My Revelation, which was marketed through Western Auto stores, is a finer rifle than your mid-level BDL at Walmart (with a fully adjustable trigger, four foreward locking lugs, damascend bolt etc). Now, in fairness, it isn't an ultra-accurate tack-driver, capable of 1.5 MOA if I do my best, but no 700 or 70 of the day is any better, as a rule.

Ash

 

[cracked butt]

I heard someone else say this a long time ago, but its stuck with me- "the 710 is the Bic lighter of rifles" The problem is that that analogy is false and would only be true if a Bic lighter cost $29 and a Zippo were priced at $30.

There are far better budget rifles out there and the Stevens model 200 would be at the top of my list.

It's amazing how well-made some of those 60's-early 70's "department store" guns are. Walnut stocks, fine bluing, and the same actions as their name-brand cousins.

So true, here is an example of the cheap Remington 700 ADL as it were made in the early 70s. Remington doesn't even make their top of the line 700s this nice anymore.



Quality will last a lifetime, cheap will always cost you more in the long run.

 

[deus_sol_invictus]

I agree with the majority here..

I saw one at a local Wally Whirled and was unimpressed. For the same $$ (about $325), they had several Winchester Model 70's to choose from, in addition to the Mossburg and a lovely 700 ADL with (shock!) factory iron sights.

 

[Nathanael_Greene]

Cracked--what a beautiful rifle! That stock is gorgeous.

I wonder if the guy who bought it originally thought he was "settling" for a cheaper model, or knew that he was getting a real bargain?

I've got an old (and I mean old) Marlin 336 that was made for Sears; the only negative to it is that some previous owner scratched ID numbers into the receiver. D'oh! A real shame, because the bluing is a lot better than on the new Marlins.

Some of the old Sears rifles had Belgian FN actions; I had a Monkey-Wards .30-06 that was made by Heym under license from Mauser. Rifles like that would be over a grand today; I picked mine up for $185. (I probably should've kept it, but I'm left-handed and just couldn't get used to working the action left-handed.)

Anyway, I'd look around for a well-preserved "Western Field" or "Ted Williams" or something like that before I'd buy a 710.