Winchester Model 70 vs. Remington 700

[jacobhh]

I wouldn't pay extra for a Model 70. Has anyone noticed that the prices have gone up fairly significantly for Model 70s and 94s since the Winchester plant closed? Has anyone seen an actual shortage of them?

I have. Been trying to find a mod70 in .308 or .270 with no luck at
my local stores, that carry used guns, or at the gun shows. I don't
like buying rifles on-line. Transfer is a hassle, I can't dicker and I can't
examine the piece.

 

[Cougfan2]

Not that the rifles aren't durable and capable of going a lifetime without repair, but I'd feel better about a Model 700 with some factory support still behind it.

As much as I love my Win M70, if I were to buy another rifle today it would be a Rem. 700 or a Savage 110. Although it may never be a problem, the parts availability issue would give me pause.

 

[Charles S]

A switch-type safety on a rifle helps those pesky twigs, errant clothing snags, etc. from catching on that trigger and ruining your day. That's why I demand absolute confidence in this component more than any other part of my long guns.

Well in 25+ years of crawling around in the bushes with the Remington action and safety in various configurations (600, 660, 7, 788, 700) I have yet to have an AD. I am not saying Remington did not have a safety problem; I know they did, but I have never had a problem.

However I will agree that the Model 70 action is more foolproof.

The Model 70 was their first choice, however.

The sources I have read stated that, I know from what I read the esteemed Mr. Hathcock prefered the Model 70 (Actually this is a little before my time so I am going by what I read). However that being stated the snipers I have interacted with are all quite pleased with a platform based on the Remington 700 action.

Winchester has ignored that market.

It isn't the rifle design, it's corporate policy than makes the 700 so ubiquitous with snipers.

That is a gross oversimplification of the situation. The reason the Winchester ignored the market was because it cost so much more (time in skilled labor) to bring the Model 70 action to the tolerances necessary for a true precision rifle. The choice was economic. It can be done, it is just much more difficult.

You are missing the point anyway. The point was that the Remington 700 action works, and has proven accurate enough to be the standard by which others are measured and is regularly used by snipers, durable enough for military service, and reliable enough to perform in the most dangerous environments in the world.

The Remington 700 action is rigid and can easily and economically be trued to provide astonishing accuracy...That is why the Remington 700 action, not the Winchester Model 70 action dominated the benchrest circles prior to the advent of the true benchrest actions.

Again, I am not detracting from the Model 70s...I love mine. I don't believe that any action is as smooth as the Model 70 action with cartridges with sharp shoulders. I love how my Model 70 action handles the Short Magnums, the model 70 has a much better feel than the Browning or Remington. The model 70 action provides all the accuracy I need.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The reason the Winchester ignored the market was because it cost so much more (time in skilled labor) to bring the Model 70 action to the tolerances necessary for a true precision rifle.

Price was not an issue -- the government would have paid any price Winchester charged. If you look at the 700s used by snipers, the cost of work and maintenence put into them far exceeds the base price -- it would have been the same for Winchesters.

 

[Charles S]

Price was not an issue -- the government would have paid any price Winchester charged.

Mr. Humphrey, price is always an issue, the contract for for small arms for the Military and Police almost always goes to the lowest bidder. This is often the case in packs, clothing, and other consumable goods. The government will almost always take the cheap way out.

Due to their differences in design the Model 70 cost more than a 700 to bring to precision tolerance necessary for a Sniper rifle or a precision target rifle. It can be done, however it cost more to do.

The information I provided is not my opinion, but what I have read about why the 700 became the choice of sniper rifle for today.

Keep in mind the Model 70 sniper rifle was again available (Winchester Model 70 Sharpshooter) in the late 80's and was selected by the FBI as their choice of sniper rifle for a time. I think that at that point the Model 700 was too entrenched in the marked for the Model 70 to make significant headway, and Remington had the prestige of the USMC Model 40A1 contract and the US Army M24 system contract.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Mr. Humphrey, price is always an issue, the contract for for small arms for the Military and Police almost always goes to the lowest bidder.

Having been involved in many contracts with the military, I have to tell you that's wrong. There are specific exemptions for both price-competition and bidding in general. The Model 70s could have been purchased on a sole-source contract (as the Remingtons were).

The dollar amount of the initial purchase was less than the cost of a tank or helicopter.

 

[KI.W.]

You have $ but I only €

Winchester pre 64 cal. 280 please. I have already like "nib" Remington 30-06 year -69. Kauko.

 

[Charles S]

I have always wanted a Pre 64 Winchester model 280, and for that matter I really would like one in 264 Winchester Magnum!

 

[Charles S]

In 1966 and 1969 the late Carlos Hathcock methodically offered NVA, VC and other combatants on the opposing side the opportunity for early retirement in the forests, rice paddies and hamlets of Vietnam. His tally was accounted for using a Winchester M70, but the newly adopted standard for the Marine Corps by 1969 was the M40.

It is/was a Remington 700 that had a match barrel installed and was lovingly bedded into a wood stock, tuned, built and tested by Marine Corps armorers. It fired a 7.62 NATO round from a 22-inch barrel and used a Unertl 10X scope.

Beginning in the early 1970s the Corps updated the system to the M40A1 with a 24-inch barrel and a few other refinements. As each M40 rifle was rotated back for service, it was stripped and rebuilt as an M40A1. (Heaven forbid the Corps should buy new rifles when the old ones could be rebuilt.) And why the Remington 700; why not build on the Winchester? Simply put, blueprinting an M700 action is lathe work. If you have a large and accurate lathe, you can rebuild M700s for eternity. The Model 70 was not amenable to such efforts.

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/featured_rifles/essentials_030306/

In honor of past US Combat snipers, SC Rifleworks was proud to build the SCM40 sniper rifle. The SC-M40 is a replica of the USMC M40 sniper rifle of 1966. The M40 served the USMC from 1966 through the end of the Vietnam conflict with a total of 750 having been produced. Because of the pressing demand for an official USMC adopted sniper rifle to replace the M70/Unertl target rifles (being used as sniper rifles) with a lighter rifle that allowed quicker times to get off the first round, the Weapons Training Battalion conducted a comparative test of commercial rifles and telescopes. They concluded that the Remington 700 combined with the Redfield accu-range 3-9x telescope was "superior to items now in use." On April 7, 1966 the Model 700 and Redfield scope were officially adopted as the "Rifle, 7.62mm Sniper, M40". The rifles were "off the shelf" Remington 700's with a heavy barrel, the muzzle diameter being .830". The stock had a dull oil finish and the barrel and action were parkerized. The floorplate and bolt shroud were "colored black" and the bolt was finished in a very matte black. The barrel was free floating and the action was NOT glass bedded. The special Redfield scope was anodized green and had the accu-range reticule. The rifle proved effective during the conflict, though the scope was a bit fragile and the rifle had its problems. But it was a good first step of which was later modified into the M40A1 which served for 30+ years.

http://www.snipercentral.com/scm40.htm

As I stated, on the Remington action it is cheaper to build an accurate rifle.

 

[Richard.Howe]

As I stated, on the Remington action it is cheaper to build an accurate rifle.

And, a Savage platform is cheaper than a Remington to build as, or more, accurately.

At the end of the day, you know what?

There's nothing "wrong" with Remington 700s. They don't suit my fancy and probably never will given their design. But lots -- and I mean LOTS -- of people love them and use them with more success than I could ever hope for.

If you're a rifle loony like me, then issues of controlled-round feed, safety design, locking bolts, etc. matter to you, and you probably have an opinion on those topics. That puts you into or out of the Remington camp.

But who cares? Just BA/UU/R and spend a lot of time in the woods. That's what it's all about anyway.

Y'all have a great night.

Rich

 

[skeet king]

Something about remington just makes me turn away
I bought a 597 and it's a peice of crap
No support from the factory at all
soon to be Win 70 owner

 

[SwampWolf]

Of course, RPM's probably made his choice a long time ago...

 

[Vern Humphrey]

My main problem with Remington is the safety. When they had cases where accidents occurred when careless people released the safety to unload the rifle, they simply did away with the bolt lockdown feature.

I don't like carrying a rifle in the woods without the lockdown feature -- imagine the world's biggest elk jumping up, and you hear a "click" because you inadvertantly lifted the bolt handle a fraction of an inch going through that last deadfall.

On the other hand, I love the 3-position Mauser, Springfield and Winchester safties. The bolt stays down, and you don't have to go hot to load or unload.