Why is my $250 Rem 742 30-06 inferior to a $2000 AR.308?

[frankenstein406]

Pretty sure they had a receiver recall on them and rem will no longer honor it. There is a company that turns them into pumps. I would recommend changing all springs but I think rem said it was only intended to last 1k rounds.

Hard to compare the two.

 

[dprice3844444]

have a 308 7400 works just fine for hunting.4 shot mag spare 10 shot.ar-10,quicker mag changes,larger capacity mags available.scope mounting is much easier and can be removed for iron sight use,and returned to zero.both are great guns.each has it's own designed purpose

 

[r_p_bayly]

I have owned a 742 that was a jam-o-matic. I have witnessed others that were the same....Problems with them are no secret.

like they both said - mine has been known as remington jammomatic for 40 years AND it also shoots beautiful 3 moa groups from a good rest. OTOH my dpms 308 shot < 1 moa ootb.
cant wait to see what it will do with the new giessele trigger --SWEET

 

[Ar180shooter]

Most aren't after a lot of rounds go through them. After a while, they are auto-jamming.

Yep, receiver chatter. The 742's are only good for about 500-1000 rounds. AR's will keep running for tens of thousands. So, to answer the OP's question, longevity, accuracy, ability to free float the barrel, magazine capacity and ergonomics are all things the AR-10 does better than the Remington. The weight of the Remington is listed at 7.5 lbs, so it's not much less than an AR-10, and you get all the other features of the AR. The other thing is a $250 Remington 742 is an old used rifle. To be fair in comparing, look at the price of a new Remington 750 and a new DPMS or ArmaLite AR-10. The Remington will be $800, and something like a DPMS AR-10 starts at around there. $2000 is a fancy new AR-10, and $250 is a beat up old 742. Not an even comparison at all.

 

[justice06rr]

Had it out today. Consistent 1 inch groups, never jammed. Except for the financial gain, why would I ever swap it for a AR 10?

Jim, its not inferior. Its kinda an apples to oranges comparison.

Both shoot bullets but each have a different purpose. The AR10 is designed as a tactical/combat rifle with higher capacity. Like to shoot good groups slowly and don't need other accesories, then your rifle is fine. If someone likes to shoot fast and add many accesories to their rifle for other purposes, an AR10 might be a better choice.

Its kinda like comparing a Toyota to a Mercedes; both do the same thing but you pick one based on your needs and budget. Personally I don't have a problem with Toyota's (owned many) but also like some higher-end vehicles.

 

[swampcrawler]

Iv killed 15 deer with my 742 and my grandfather has taken somewhere between 80 and 90 with his, and I couldn't even guess on my dads. None of ours have ever jammed on us, but at the time I didnt, and they still dont, shoot more than a box a year. So it does well for its intended purpose.

 

[MCgunner]

See, you can charge 2000 dollars for it if it is "tactical". Ever notice something as innocuous as, say, a rifle sling they'll put "Tactical Rifle Sling" on the label and it's an instant extra 10 bucks? Hell, before the .22LR crunch, there was a 325 round box of CCI "Tactical" .22 LR....friggin' lead round nose! 25 bucks. Right beside it was a box of Federal Auto Match. 15 bucks. You'd think the "match" grade would be worth more than the "Tactical", but no, not in THIS world! That match stuff probably bounces off zombies.

So, they can sell rifles like ARs made out of recycled aluminum cans for thousands while wood a blued steel is CHEAP because none of the zombie hunters think it's tacticool.

That's my theory and I'm stickin' to it. Pistol grips are for pistols.

 

[BruceB]

REGARDLESS of YOUR intended use for the AR10, what you are paying-for is a rifle that is designed, built and intended for large volumes of fire.

The parts are stronger, the system runs cleaner, function and DURABILITY is much better.

Try running 100 rounds through the 742 as quickly as possible, and see how far it will get. This means using multiple magazines, of course.

Do the same with the AR10, and I would expect it to fire numerous full magazines without problems, even as it becomes literally smoking-hot.

THERE is where the price difference comes from. The extra money is paid for the capability of a military-type rifle, versus the lighter construction and reduced sustained-fire ability of a sporting rifle.

This is nothing new, and riflemen have been well aware of the difference for many years.

 

[Harry1969]

My 742 functioned just fine I should of kept it

 

[Panzerschwein]

The AR-10 was designed as a combat rifle and can except all kinds of tactical accesories.

Other than that, not much from a purely target shooting or hunting perspective, but if I were going to storm the beaches of North Korea, I'd take the AR-10.

 

[rule303]

I am no fan of the AR-10 platform, I just don't care for them. That being said, it is better than the 742 in almost every way. The 742 series could have been a great rifle, but there were too many problems with the design. They do handle and point naturally.
The bolt lugs chewing up the receivers to the point of being unrepairable in a few hundred rounds is completely unacceptable (every single one has this problem. It's not a matter of if but when it will fail). Rough chambers causing brass to get stuck in the chamber locking up the gun, or sometimes breaking the extractor. Mediocre accuracy, poor triggers, and no bolt hold open on the rifle itself. The thing that gets me is that Remington knew about the issues and kept producing them for 2 decades+.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

See, you can charge 2000 dollars for it if it is "tactical". Ever notice something as innocuous as, say, a rifle sling they'll put "Tactical Rifle Sling" on the label and it's an instant extra 10 bucks? Hell, before the .22LR crunch, there was a 325 round box of CCI "Tactical" .22 LR....friggin' lead round nose! 25 bucks. Right beside it was a box of Federal Auto Match. 15 bucks. You'd think the "match" grade would be worth more than the "Tactical", but no, not in THIS world! That match stuff probably bounces off zombies.

So, they can sell rifles like ARs made out of recycled aluminum cans for thousands while wood a blued steel is CHEAP because none of the zombie hunters think it's tacticool.

That's my theory and I'm stickin' to it. Pistol grips are for pistols.

For sure. I never got the military gun craze.

 

[benzy2]

I've never understood the guys who had to justify why their budget item is just as good as a more expensive item. These type of threads always reek of jealousy. Nobody can appreciate that something else could serve some purpose better than what they've chosen to buy. If your rifle does what you need of it, and it does so for a price you can justify, perfect. Why try to prove your line of thinking is better than anyone who finds joy with something else?

 

[jim in Anchorage]

I just asked a question. No need to go all Sigmund Freud here.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

The 742 wasn't really a budget gun when new. It just was a poorly designed one that was often problematic.

 

[dprice3844444]

another plus of the ar-10 is it's easier to service and lube as parts are more readily available.

 

[Art Eatman]

Two completely different types of use, so it's apples and oranges. A clean 742 for the typical deer hunter who shoots only a few rounds per year is a lifetime gun. But it's well-known that the wear factor is poor and the total available round-count is much less than for other rifles.

While an AR10 can be used for hunting, I rather doubt that among the approximately 22 million licensed hunters, AR10s are the rifle of choice.

 

[jrdolall]

My 742 is almost a single shot but it is very accurate. I rarely shoot it because of the jamming issues but it was given to me by a relative so it is scoped and looks good.

For shooting a deer it would be a bit foolish to use an AR-10. Would it work? Absolutely. For going into a true battle (non-zombie affair) it would be equally foolish to carry a gun that is known to have serious design flaws that lead to failure. In a zombie battle you could at least bash them with the jammed rifle since they don't fight at a distance.

 

[Kosh75287]

I guess the test for the 742 owned by JIM IN ANCHORAGE, would be to run about 150 rounds through it, shooting at a set of targets perhaps 200 or 250 yards away, under time pressure (let's say, 100 rounds in 3.5 minutes, or 150 rounds in 5 minutes), and keep track of accuracy degradation, failures to to fire/feed/eject. etc.

The test would be expensive, but it would probably be edifying, if the constraints of the test are reasonable and scrupulously observed. I have a feeling that swapping out those 4-round magazines (I hope you have more than one or two) rapidly would be a chore, and I'd expect point of aim to wander as the piece heats up from continuous firing.

I recall, in my (much) younger days, a company that manufactured high(er)-capacity magazines for the various Remington gas auto-loaders. I know of a few (probably 5 or 6) fellow shooters who bought at least one such magazine. I'm not aware of any who bought more. Whether it was the magazine or the rifle that was the weak link in the continuous-fire equation, I do not know. But SOMEthing made it not work.

So, if the 742 is used in the "carried often, shot only when necessary or highly beneficial" role, I guess we're back to comparing a sports coupe to a HMMWV, the outcome of which is at least a knowable as the "Joe Louis vs. Mohammed Ali" theoretical. Interesting pondering, but not really of much real application.

If the intent is to compare the 742 to a piece that was designed from the ground up as a battle implement, I'm not optimistic about the 742's performance.

Just saying...

 

[X-Rap]

The OP calls out a lowball price for the 742 and a highball price of 2k for the AR. How about a more realistic $500 to $1100 comparison for starters.
Take 10 guns of each type and start shooting them to the point that they will no longer function and I believe the AR will win out by a long shot.
The shortcoming of each are well known and I would favor the AR on almost every count.
Neither would be my choice for big bears in the OP's neck of the woods but I wouldn't hesitate to carry the 742's cousin up there.

 

[CLP]

My Dad's '88 Ford Escort starts up evertime he turns the key over and the a/c is still cold.

It's still an '88 Ford Escort though.

My wife's Lexus doesn't do either of those two things any better, but I prefer it over the Ford Escort.

 

[jmorris]

My 742 never jammed but I wouldn't have sold it if it shot as good as the OP's.

It also had more felt recoil than even my 300 win mag BAR, the AR 10 is a kitten in comparison.