Which one would you buy
Which one would you buy
What are you going to do with it?
Very different answers depending on your use.
I have Remington 700 that was built for my brother by a local gun smith years ago. After market heavy barrel, McMillan stock, glass bedded. Muzzle brake. Pachmeyer decelerator pad. 3x9 Leupold scope on it. We have hosed 2 huge bull moose with it. 400 grain Barnes X bullets, and you only need one. I really like that gun.
Hunt Ethically. Respect the Environment.
Well i had a remington 700 i sold because we thought we were moving out of state sooner now thats changed, so I want another bear gun was thinking the ruger is nice excdpt only 2 factory loadings for remington a lot of options i can roll my own but didnt really want to
Kinda boils down to two "schools" of uses.
More and more 416's showing up in the hands of bear guides I know and their packers. To a man, they're packing shortish barrels in the 20"-22" range and open sights. Don't recall seeing a single scope. To a man, all the sports I see packing 416's favor longer barrels on the order of 22"-24", all scoped with or without backup open sights. Points out a little difference in uses for their guns.
I will say though, that any of the guides and packers I've seen shoot, they generally shoot better and further with open sights than the sports can manage with scopes and longer barrels. It boils down to the guides/packers shooting lots and knowing how to use open sights, while the sports mostly just don't shoot enough to get good with their guns.
Brands of rifles run the gamut, with each owner quick to climb a soap box for their favorite.
Ruger in a heartbeat. In 30-years of guiding I've seen more Remington 700s fail than any other brand. Usually the ejector. Saw one fail again last year. Hunter made a poor first shot on a huge bull moose with a 338, the ejector broke when he cycled the bolt. Things went downhill from there. Saw a Cooper rifle fail last fall too...on a for TV grizzly hunt.
I've shot the .416 Ruger Alaskan and really liked it. Have not fired a .416 Remington. They both produce over 5,100 ft lbs of energy at the muzzle. The Ruger has a fairly short barrel for quick handling and a reasonable recoil. Comparing it to my .338 WM, the .416 had a "shove" recoil vs a jolt. So, if you're looking for a classy looking gun, go with the Remington (I have seen one Remington fail, too). If you're looking for a brush-beater, drop-on-the-rocks and fire unit, I'd go with the Ruger.
My brother had his built on the Remington action. I've always said he should have used my Winchester Classic. Love the pre 64 style action and the 3 position safety. The serial number is 41670. Yup, should have put that heavy premium barrel with the muzzle brake on that gun.
I have a heavy barrel Classic in .375 H&H. Shoot 300 grain Barnes X out of it. Big bulls roll over dead with one shot.
Hunt Ethically. Respect the Environment.
If you are set on those 2 rifle choices or any others, I would go with what ever rifle has the most reliable trigger, after that it would be the extractor. I just can't come up with any more important feature on any big game rifle, especially a bear rifle, then the trigger, then the ejector. The rifle going bang and feeding a new round into the chamber won't always happen if the trigger and extractor are not as fool proof as possible. Some time on the internet will make it obvious as to what rifle designs have the most recurring problems.
The last 75 years have given us so many new rifle designs. Not because they are any better then the old and reliable 98 Mauser or old Mod. 70 Winchester, but because they are cheaper to produce and appeal to new generations. Gun writers and advertising showing pictures of tiny little groups on paper from a shooting bench are what promotes these new rifles. Not years of hard field use.
Nice thread. Thanks for sharing.
I have never even heard of an ejector on a 700 giving trouble. Extactors I have heard can break but I have never seen it. I have a Rem700V in 223 that I have put about 8000 rds through without ejector issues or extractor either. But you should pick the one you like and tale care of it and it will take care of you.
The debate rages over Sako extractors in 700's. Would be easier to Google it up. The M16 extractor conversion is what the Navy uses, but it is not much safer to the shooter in a serious over pressure event.
I personally have little use for the Ruger M77 line, although I do own an American which I like for a cheap knock around. They are a bugger to bed easily with the slant screw, and you never know what your going to get as far as a consistent action with their investment casting process.
This is a good article on the subject, and after owning and using some European rifles I completely agree with his assessment. Its one thing to take a rifle out once or twice a year and use it for a few days....When you carry one for months at a time ,through the bush, on horses, argos, quads, and snowmobiles you soon realize that reliability is king. While a bit rough, I have found the Zastava commercial 98s to be about as tough as they come...http://www.africahunting.com/threads...ncy-exam.2604/
"The benefit of controlled feed is greatly exaggerated. Look at it this way the US military hunt the most dangerous game on earth with Rem. Rifles. When I designed the Marine M40A1 we considered replacing the extractor but when we researched extractor failure we found it so incidental it wasn't worth considering . The problem with installing the a M16 or Sako extractor is when you blow a primer it turns to shrapnel" Gale McMillan
Do you intend to scope the rifle? Do you find one of them more attractive than the other? Are you a handloader?
The answers to these questions would help determine my selection. The Ruger has very serviceable factory iron sights and with the addition of a rear aperture sight, you'd be hard pressed to install better "open" sights. I've yet to see a Remington 700 that was factory equipped with what I'd consider serviceable iron sights. When mounting a scope, the Ruger is very limited on options and various quality options get expensive very quickly. The Remington has more scope mounts available than any other rifle design and runs the gamut in type, function and cost. As for aesthetics, I'd have a hard time putting the Ruger Guide model in my safe. That multi-colored laminate stock with the plastic spacers in the recoil pad turns my blood cold. That doesn't mean it's ugly, just that I can't like it and buying one would mean I'm restocking it immediately just so I could carry it with a clean taste in my mouth. IMO the Remington 700s are somewhat better in this regard and there are a few designs that I can tolerate, eve appreciate as it comes from the factory. Both cartridges will benefit from handloading, but the .416 Remington Magnum has always had availability and selection issues. When you can find factory ammo, and that's been rare almost since it was unveiled, its pricey. The .416 Ruger is limited in selection as well, though I've found it to be cheaper and more available recently. If that remains true in 5 years is another thing altogether. If you're not a handloader, I'd recommend steering clear of either cartridge and look at a .375 of some flavor or another. If you're a handloader I'd give the nod to the .416 Remington simply because you can readily substitute .375 H&H brass and that's normally available and comparatively cheap.
Personally, I've had great success in a variety of environments with Ruger and Remington rifles. They both have qualities that a little tuning can improve significantly, but they are both sound designs. The merits of CRF vs. PF is something more suited to armchair discussions than being am advantage in the field. The primary question for a field/hunting rifle has to do with the facts of that particular example and will it function reliably? I've a bunch of PF and CRF rifles and I'm as confident in the PFs as I am the CRFs.
I'd lean towards the Remington, but that doesn't mean it's the best.
Foolishness is a moral category, not an intellectual one.
i've owned both, shot both hundreds of times. back up lots of bears with the 416's. owned three different 416. guide gun is what i have now. only dislike....the weight. ammo is wayyy cheaper if your buying factory. the numbers are close enough to be the same. go find one of each hold it, love on it, and see which one loves you back...
Master guide 212
Controlled round feed is what I have used the most, but I never had a problem with push feed rifles and I trust them. I am aware of the military and many police agencies using some sort of modified Rem. 700 since the Viet Nam days. I don't really take that to mean they were the best rifle available. I think they met what ever criteria was on the drawing board, were cheaper to manufacture so they were possibly the lowest or near lowest bidder.
I'm also not convinced that the rifle that today's highly trained military marksman is issued for hunting men is the best manufactured rifle for hunting big bears. But, I do think any bolt rifle that would survive the muddy and harsh coditions of trench warfare in the early 1900's and WWI is a good place to start for a big bear rifle design. Back to the Mauser 98 and those rifles that copied many of it's desirable features, such as the Springfield and Mod. 70 rifles. They also had reliable triggers.
I also don't care for a bolt that is not locked down when a round is chambered and the rifle is put on safe. The Ruger rings are tough and the ones I have used kept their zero when the scope was removed and put back on.
Many others have lots more rifle experience then I do and I'm just sharing my thoughts from almost 60 years of Mod. 70 use and from my limited experience and knowledge of other rifles.
The Ruger safety makes the decision. That is one thing the 700 will never have is a 3 position safety. I like my M77 for durability over my 700's. The 700 action is WAY smoother and the trigger can be much better. But, for a close quarters short barreled reliable gun, the smoother action and better trigger are not a big deal. I had the older 416 ruger in one hand and my credit card in the other a few years ago. I chickened out and went with the 375, no regrets. If you don't roll your own, the 375 might be worth looking at.