Remington 783 - where did the parts come from?

[Caliper_Mi]

So, I've been looking into modern bolt actions (as opposed to my old milsurps) and there sure are a wide variety or options out there. I'd like something to take some longer shots with (500-1000yd) in silhouette shoots or occasionally get to an F-class event when time allows. Without jumping right in high-buck with a Surgeon or something like that, I've been trying to decide between a Savage 10/110 and a Remington 700 but happened on some articles about the Remington 783, and it seems like an interesting hybrid of Remington and Savage design?

Based on this article, it looks like it uses a Savage-style floating bolt head in addition to the barrel nut? http://www.realguns.com/articles/476.htm

I like the closed top receiver for extra rigidity, maybe a 700 receiver that skipped a few milling steps? Wondering if the 783 will fit in a 700 stock, or maybe share triggers?

The ability to swap barrels at home that a Savage offers really appeals to me, but I like the variety of aftermarket parts that are made for Remington. Hoping this rifle might bridge the gap. Anyone out there with a 783 and either a Savage or a Rem 700 who can offer some first hand comparison?

 

[dprice3844444]

http://www.snipercentral.com/milspec5r.phtml
http://www.snipercountry.com/inreviews/rem_m700_stainlessspecial5rmilspec.asp
http://www.snipercountrypx.com/pc-4996-836-scpx-700ss-5r-milspec-deployment-package-300-wm.aspx

 

[LAGS]

I have seen " Switch Barrel" configurations done on the Mauser action.
The Switch barrel is why I got a Savage in the .308, and I want to get several other barrel for it like .243, 7mm-08 and 257 Roberts Improved.
It would be nice if the Remington was built with the same feature.

 

[Ash]

"Polish the hardware a bit, finish the barreled action with satin bluing, drop it into a cut checked walnut stock and you've got a very nice sporter."

The guy in the blog post is correct - he just said why Savage rifles have been great for 50 years now. That Remington copied all the things that made the Savage great further demonstrates that.

"My point is that the Model 783 appears to be more of a starting point of a successor to the Model 700"

In other words, a Savage 110 has the potential to be the successor of the Remington 700.

I don't mind folks liking Remington. I've owned their products and many were good. Some where real turds like the 710/770, but others were nice. Even though Remington didn't make it, the Zastava Remington was a good rifle. The 700 is a good rifle.

But it agrees with my point that there is ultimately no real difference between the receiver on a 700 and that of a 110. They are both tubular steel receivers. What you have in the 783 is just a modified Savage. The only real shame about that (I'm sure the 783 is a good rifle) is that Remington isn't doing any innovation anymore, just copying what others have designed.

I'd get the Savage only because it already is available with nice polish and finish if you want it and has vastly more after market parts/stocks/you name it for making the rifle what you want it to be.

 

[d2wing]

According to the review the 783 is not like a Savage or 700 but does have some of the same features. I would not say Savage has been making good rifles for 50 years as for most of those years they were cheap and poor quality. So the Savage, however improved they are over the past, is not in any way a successor to the 700,
I am pretty interest in the 783 for it's accuracy potential. Several companies are coming out with improved designs and accuracy which is great. I think we are in the golden age of new accuracy levels all the way around. What bothers me about both Savage and Remington is quality control. I don't want to get stuck with a lemon no matter who makes it.

 

[Doug S]

I would not say Savage has been making good rifles for 50 years as for most of those years they were cheap and poor quality. So the Savage, however improved they are over the past, is not in any way a successor to the 700,

I agree, this fits with my experience having owned multiples of both over the last 30 years or so. Seems like a lot of Savage guys spend more time arguing that their rifle is the greatest thing since sliced bread (while comparing it to other brands), instead of just enjoying it for it's own merits. I for one can enjoy my Remington without having to compare it to your Savage.

The 783 looks to be a decent rifle if the early reviews hold true. The Savage Axis looks equally good IMO. I'll split the difference though, and I would like to pick up a Ruger American. Just sayin.

 

[Ash]

The Savage 110 has been known for accuracy since it was first introduced, and Savage 111's and later 114's have always been every bit the equal of any 700 BDL. I have encountered as many cheap 700ADL's with pressed or no checkered walnut-finished hardwood (mostly beech) blind-magazine stocks as Savage. The bolt, barrel and barrel nut are pure Savage. The receiver is the only thing semi-unique, but even then it is just a tubular steel receiver not substantially different than a Savage Axis (which predates the 783 by a few years), and that has been used for more than half a century.

In any case, it is elitist ignorance to suggest that the Savage 110 was poor quality. Were that the case, were the 110 poor quality, Remington would not slavishly copy the design - particularly since it is largely a Savage design they are copying nor would Savage not only survive, outlasting Winchester as a company, but also to begin to eclipse Remington. Either that, or Remington is simply poor quality, but they showed their cards in that department, in spades no less, with the 710/770 rifles. If the 783 is the potential replacement, the future of Remington, it is clear Remington's future lies in Savage designs from 50 years ago.

 

[d2wing]

Lately Savages have been accurate. Back when I got started on guns that was not the case and they were much cheaper made and ugly. I had bad ones. They have achieved parity I would guess. I agree that Remingtons are way cheaper than in my heyday. The 783 has copied some good features of the Savage. Hopefully it is an improvement over all previous designs. I am not as interested in the brand as how it performs. Reviews are good but I may buy another 700 or other rifle first.

 

[Ash]

Savage accuracy has been known for a very long time. The only bad Savage 110's were the late 1980's models that looked real cheap during the bankruptcy. Savage emerged from bankruptcy and quality improved. Even so, the late 1980's Savage 110 was still an accurate rifle.

Remington 700adl's in the 1980's were real bottom-basement cheap, no better than the Savage of the time.

By the way, the Savage 110 is the oldest continuously-manufactured bolt action rifle in America. Can't get that way on low quality. Remington kept the 710 out for what, a whole 5 years? Cheap, low-quality rifles don't survive. The Savage 110 has.

None of that diminishes the 783. It just shows the design of the Savage was decades ahead of its time when you consider that Marlin, Mossberg, and Remington all copy design elements from Savage.

 

[d2wing]

Well good for Savage. Glad to see they have loyal fans and good design features. Now how about reports on how the 783 shoots especially compared to the 700 and other of the new rifles like the Ruger American, Axis etc.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

According to the review the 783 is not like a Savage or 700 but does have some of the same features.

I was hoping that it would be enough like a 700 to use their stocks, and enough like a Savage to use the barrels many well-liked barrel makers sell. I was going from a "there's nothing new under the sun" position and hoping that Remington didn't reinvent the wheel with this rifle. The closed top receiver is what really caught my eye, but if the 783 is really doesn't share parts with anything else, that means there aren't any aftermarket barrels or stocks for it and it doesn't interest me.

I guess nobody has one of each to compare?

 

[rule303]

If you want a gun that shoots like a Savage, why not just buy a Savage? First the other manufacturers raced to come out with their own version of the accu-trigger, then the floating bolt head, and barrel nut for headspacing. Plenty of replacement stocks and triggers out there for Savage.

 

[d2wing]

Because Savages have not been able to compete with the 700 or 700 derived actions in competition. We are looking for an improvement over the 700 in accuracy, not a second rate action like the Savage. If Savage was the action to beat in competition you would have a point but you don't. I expect a lot of willfully ignorant posts like above to follow. That is par here.

 

[AABEN]

the savage 110 has been known for accuracy since it was first introduced, and savage 111's and later 114's have always been every bit the equal of any 700 bdl. I have encountered as many cheap 700adl's with pressed or no checkered walnut-finished hardwood (mostly beech) blind-magazine stocks as savage. The bolt, barrel and barrel nut are pure savage. The receiver is the only thing semi-unique, but even then it is just a tubular steel receiver not substantially different than a savage axis (which predates the 783 by a few years), and that has been used for more than half a century.

In any case, it is elitist ignorance to suggest that the savage 110 was poor quality. Were that the case, were the 110 poor quality, remington would not slavishly copy the design - particularly since it is largely a savage design they are copying nor would savage not only survive, outlasting winchester as a company, but also to begin to eclipse remington. Either that, or remington is simply poor quality, but they showed their cards in that department, in spades no less, with the 710/770 rifles. If the 783 is the potential replacement, the future of remington, it is clear remington's future lies in savage designs from 50 years ago.

you have it wright.

 

[AABEN]

Savage has set the stand-red for the rifles the last 10 years or more! Savage has done very well shooting at 1000 yard won two not to long ago! YES the 783 is a good shooting gun. I saw where they had it in one of my books that it was shooting a better than a gun for over 1.699.00! So it is bad when the two was in the book at the same time. 400.00 gun out did 1.699.00 that gun was the Saure 101 classic. Look in the American Hunter Dec 2013. Rem old 788 would out shoot the 700!!

 

[Ash]

"second rate action."

Do you really understand the differences between a 110 action and a 700 action beyond Archie Bunker comments? Hint, there's not a dime's worth of difference between them. Both are tubular steel bolt action rifles with dual-opposed locking bolts, push-feed actions with plunger-type ejectors, a recoil lug sandwiched between the barrel and receiver, and the option of numerous different stocks from very basic (cheap) to very, very nice.

And, Savage is capable of utterly consistent chambers, something the Remington does not have in the 700, but will have in the 783. With the Savage locking system and floating bolt head that Remington copied, the 783 with its tubular steel receiver, accutrigger imitation, is just a Savage with different pumps and dress. Can one really say it isn't a Savage when fundamentally the only real difference is the placement of the safety? Come on.