Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Remington and bolts

  1. #1

    Question Remington and bolts

    We borrowed a friends Remington 700 for last weeks sheep hunt and we had problem with the bolt always wanting to open. I knew about this before hand but didn't think it would be an issue but it eventually got to a point where the wife had to carry it inside her back pack. We really liked this rifle and she shot it well so we had been considering buying one for her but with this issue with the bolt we may have to look at something different. Personally I own several Winchesters and love them but wanted something different for her. I do know all about the 2 position safety and thats why the bolt opens but is there any way to fix this problem through a gunsmith or is it just a quirk with Remingtons?

  2. #2

    Arrow Remingtons

    Have your local gunsmith install the old type Remington safety that locks the bolt in the safe position,just be aware when you are unloading the safety goes to the fire position to unlock the bolt so keep your finger out of the trigger guard and no problems will occur mine is a 1962 model 700 BDL and I've never had a problem.Hope this helps and good shooting Ronnie

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    S.E. Alaska
    Posts
    198

    Unhappy Rem 700 & duck tape

    Duck tape may be the cheaper solution to your problem with the 700 bolt.

    This is an old story, everyone is aware of the history, etc. There are two distinct camps on this subject, with a big gap in between .

    Those who like the 700, either ignore the problem, live with it or somehow rationalize - I dunno what, because I can't understand how folks could live with such a design flaw - intentionally done, and Remington's refusal to fix.

    Then there are those like me who just refuse to own a remington 700, no matter what it is chambered in, or how pretty it is, or how easy it is to bed, or how accurate, or for any reason - simply because of the flawed safety.

    KB

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    3,394

    Default


    Then there are those like me who just refuse to own a remington 700, no matter what it is chambered in, or how pretty it is, or how easy it is to bed, or how accurate, or for any reason - simply because of the flawed safety.

    KB
    Put me in the same boat.

  5. #5

    Default

    I have to agree, with the flaw in the safety design and Remington being unwilling to re-design it, I will probably get her a Winchester instead.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    S.E. Alaska
    Posts
    198
    Last edited by Kabluewy; 09-14-2006 at 09:55.

  7. #7
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,428

    Default Remington not so safety...

    The new Sako M75 and M85 rifles have a feature that I thought was pretty dufus intil I talked to a lot of Remington fans. Most of them dislike the non-bolt-locking safety because the bolt falls out. The safety on the Sako rifles locks the bolt, as it always has but has an added push button to allow the bolt to cycle with the safety engaged. It would seem Remington could do that as well. After all they already a cheesy pushbutton bolt release, what's one more cheap pushbutton. The Sako system actually works and is a good safety as far as safeties go.

    I would say as a "fix" for the M700 would be to carry it without a round in the chamber and not cocked. This is done by fretting down the rounds in the magazine while closing the bolt then dry fire on an empty chamber, with the muzzle pointed where you want the bullet to go. If you're good you will hear a snap, if not, you'll hear a boom! I very quiet way to do this is to hold the trigger back while lowering the bolt. But I always like the snap, it is more assuring.

    I think the Steyr SBS rifles have a similar fire-safe-safe lock, three position safety (sort of a three position). But Remingtons answer to a non existant problem was to file off the little locking tang. The old pre-64 Winchester safety was a good idea in 1935.
    Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?



  8. #8

    Default

    That's the way I deal with the newer Remingtons, Murph.

  9. #9

    Default

    Hmmm...first I heard of this problem. My dad has owned a model 700 for as long as I can remember and I have owned one for the past 5 years. No problems with mine. Maybe I am misunderstanding the problem though, but my bolt stays closed.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    S.E. Alaska
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ob_1jr View Post
    Hmmm...first I heard of this problem. My dad has owned a model 700 for as long as I can remember and I have owned one for the past 5 years. No problems with mine. Maybe I am misunderstanding the problem though, but my bolt stays closed.
    Sometime ago, Remington decided to "fix" the "problem" of having to place the safety in the fire position to open the bolt. So they made the safeties thereafter so they would not lock the bolt down, which created another problem - namely the one that started this thread. It can be blamed on whatever - including lawers, etc, but in my book many other rifle makers have no such problems because they take the responsibility to make the mechanism work properly.

    There were many law suits - many postings on the web about this Rem safety.

    I have never been so disgusted with firearm related incidents, as I have on two occasions at the firing range, with friends shooting Rem 700s. But it is a long story. Fortunately no one was hurt - only a hole in the roof. The point is the Remington safety (the older ones) and clutzes don't mix. but unfortunately there are plenty of them, and we all have our bad days, and do stupid things. I am lucky, and have never had a gun go off unintentionally, but I'm real careful too, and very picky about the workings of my firearms, especially the safety.

    Because of the incidents, now if I even see someone with a Remington, if I can't avoid him altoghether, I'll at least watch where he points the muzzel, just to check his safety ethics, before relaxing.

    KB

  11. #11

    Default

    I'm a pure-blooded nazi about safe gun handling. You don't get any second chances if you point a muzzle in my direction. I'll either butt stroke you up the side of the head or make you wish I had instead of chewing you out. In either case, you'll never be around me with a gun in your hand again. Period. End of story.

    In light of that, I've never been bothered by the Remington safety. I simply don't carry a round in the chamber when hunting. With good discipline, it's not an issue at the range either. I'd sure be happy with a different safety on the 700, but I like the rifle too much to give up on it over the safety.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    S.E. Alaska
    Posts
    198

    Default

    BrownBear,
    I'm not so nazi about it, but I do have a firm opinion, as you can see. More than one time, I have been in the presence of friends, whose son or even worse, his daughter, wife or girlfriend was waving the muzzel of the Rem 700. I was very glad to remove myself from those situations. Frankly, it wouldn't have mattered much what brand of rifle it was, I just noticed in the cases I remember, the rifle was a remington. Accidents can happen with any firearm, but in my counting, the Rem 700 has been notorious. I just didn't want to be rude, but I was very uncomfortable. That's why I'm bothered by the Rem safety. Some folks just won't listen, and there is no need to say anything. It's a good idea, when it's their idea.

    One of these beloved wives was riding in their truck, right in the middle of town, and had a 243 Rem 700 go off. They pulled over, and everyone piled out, children screeming, etc. Again no one was hurt, just deafened for a while, and a hole in the floorboard. Her husband, the driver was - I repeat was - the local hunter ed instructer. I don't know if they learned anything or not.

    I realize it's people who shoot people, and good sense, and handling will solve most of the problems with what I think is a flawed mechanism. But I would be far more satisfied if the safety was really a safety. Even if it was, it may not cause me to buy a Remington, but it would surely cause me to feel more safe around others who use the 700.

    KB
    Last edited by Kabluewy; 09-15-2006 at 10:07.

  13. #13
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,428

    Default Remington Safety

    BB,

    Exactly! Where the muzzle is pointed is the single most important factor in regard to gun safety. An N/D is just an oops! A hole in the the dirt is imbarassing and in the roof costly, but if the a muzzle is ever pointed at an individual it is a criminal act! It is an act of gross stupidity and carelessness. And I am with you, I will react accordingly. A quick butt stroke across the lips will usually straighten things out. I have zero tollerance for it.

    I am like you, I also carry without a round in the chamber, even in lion and bear country. I beleive the presents of mind to have a rifle and use a rifle also means the presents of mind to load and shoot. I can do that.

    Now to the Remington. The change in the safety came about because to unload the ADL (blind magazine) involved cycling the rounds through the action. Well I don't think that was never a problem for the folks I have known and hunted with for forty years, but Remington thought differently, probably due to lawyers.

    I honestly think most round that are "accidently fired" from a M700 are because of about three things.

    1. Carrying a round in the chamber all the time. I've seen it done when walking the fields, when climbing into trees, when riding in a vehicle and on horse back. The two "A/D's" , with a M700's, that I know about, (fatalities) were both firing the rifle from inside the truck.

    2. Secondly with a maladjusted trigger and a rapid cycling of the the bolt of the ADL to unload, that is an N/D waiting to happen. I like having the ability and the means to adjust my trigger but it seems there are too many screws on the Remington trigger for some folks.

    3. The third horseman here is the human tendency to rely on a mechanical gizmo to save us from evil. It can't happen. Only a devout fool would believe that a mechanical safety can make a gun safe. The safety for any rifle is between our ears!

    By the time my kids and grand kids were five years old, they all knew and could recite the number one most important rule in gun handling safety. I changed it slightly from the NRA version and the Cooper version but it goes like this.
    "Always-Point the muzzle in the direction you want the bullet to go."

    Someone here asked me if I had ever had an "accidental discharge" or what I call a Negligent Discharge" (N/D) I have had several, with varying degrees of negligence. And without going into details I will say that all bullets went where the muzzle was pointed. Also, no one was ever injured. When I need to load or unload a gun inside my home I point it at a stack of magazines or an inexpensive furniture, a feline, etc. Never at what I want to keep intact.

    "No animal was ever injured during the loading or unloading of any firearm"
    Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?



  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    S.E. Alaska
    Posts
    198

    Default Friends & Remington 700s

    Murphy, BrownBear, and others.

    Just to be clear, I want you to know that I have several friends who use the Remington 700, and I hunt with them sometimes, only because so far they have not pointed the muzzel toward me. (or others as well) It wouldn't matter what kind of rifle it was, if I see the muzzel pointed in my direction, even toward my foot or leg, that person is almost certainly someone I don't hang around with in the future. That depends a little if they listen when I say something about it, and don't do it again.

    I don't want you to think that I believe the mechanical workings of a safety is a good substitute for proper gun handling. That is not the case. I just believe that the person is rare who doesn't have a round in the chamber. There are few people who carry a Rem 700 with an empty chamber as a safety precaution.

    Best Regards,
    KB

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    S.E. Alaska
    Posts
    198

    Default Rifle safety

    Quote Originally Posted by Murphy View Post

    BB,

    Exactly! Where the muzzle is pointed is the single most important factor in regard to gun safety.

    I am like you, I also carry without a round in the chamber, even in lion and bear country. I beleive the presents of mind to have a rifle and use a rifle also means the presents of mind to load and shoot. I can do that.


    The third horseman here is the human tendency to rely on a mechanical gizmo to save us from evil. It can't happen. Only a devout fool would believe that a mechanical safety can make a gun safe. The safety for any rifle is between our ears!
    Murphy,
    While I agree with you, I also think it is rare for a person to carry around a rifle with an empth chamber.

    Also, if an adequate safety doesn't make a gun safer (statistically or somehow measueably more safe) then why bother with a safety at all? Just carry an empty chamber - load only when about to shoot?

    This is the root and old familiar red herring (diversion) about the Rem 700 Safety argument. My opinion is that the safety does in fact make rifles more safe. Proper handling ethics are even more important. If the Rem safety was more mechanically correct, I wouldn't have a problem with the Rem 700. I'm always going to have a problem with folks who don't use safe practices in handling their guns. My point is the factor of the flawed safety is a seperate issue from the human factor of handling ethics, except for the crossover in that some folks find rationalization that it's ok to have a less than safe safety, because the "problem" is not the safety at all - it's the person behind the rifle. In my view, there are ethics in that too.

    Regards,
    KB

  16. #16
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,428

    Default Safety....

    KB,

    I agree most are fully loaded and I do carry loaded when I am close enough to smell 'em.

    That brings me to a long rant about safety types. The Remington, Browning (FN and A-bolt) ,Sako (it does have an added feature in some models) and many others, only lock the trigger or the trigger and sear but it doesn't positively hold the striker from falling. The pre-64/post-94 M70, Dakotas, Mausers (some) and the MK II Rugers and others with the safety mounted on the cocking piece, actually pull the striker back off the sear and hold it.
    Another rifle with this type safety is the M 30 Remington or the mother of it, the P-17.

    These are the types that allow the trigger to be pulled with the safety on but of course it doesn't drop the striker unless the safety is off. These are especially nice when unloading in the position two. (on safe-bolt unlocked) the real benefit of a three position safety. This type of safety is designed to hold the striker even if the rifle is damaged, such as could occur in a fall. You could actually break the trigger housing off the rifle and the safety would hold the striker and prevent the rifle from firing. This type of safety is superior to the Remington type. No, I still don't trust them but there are times such as in a fall or when the rifle is dropped, or is out of our immediate control, yet fully loaded, that we come to appreciate these types of mechanical safety. Still in regard to a safety and safe guns the human is the most unsafe part.

    My greif with the Remington is that everything they do is to make every part as of every gun as to be manufactured as inexpensively as possible to keep the selling price low and the profit high. Remington has been in buisness for a long time so these decisions are sound from the bookkeepers point of view. But the other side of the coin is Ruger who has listened to the rifle buying public and improved their design yet still sell a very affordable rifle.

    Just my slightly biased opinion.
    Last edited by Murphy; 09-17-2006 at 20:41.
    Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?



  17. #17

    Default

    I have owned a few Remington 700 rifles. Never encountered any problem with bolt or a safety.

    Are they "cheap"? I don't think so.
    Afterall, the Rem 700 action is machined from a billet of steel, not an investment casting like the Ruger. Ruger firearms have nothing of the fine finish characteristics that so many prize Colt model P or S&W double-actions for. Compare a Remington 3200 to a Ruger O/U; no contest. I have never seen a Ruger stock that had an elegance to it; but maybe I'm just not looking.

    If Ruger 77's or #1's were "accurate", or capable of being "accurized", the military would use them, varmint hunters would use them, and the accessory makers would have scads of aftermarket gear for them. Yet, there is very little gear of that sort for the Ruger 77. Why?, They aren't capable of "accuracy". Not even close enough for Govt Work.

    Actually, I read this thread thinking I might hear something new about Remington's policy about selling replacement bolts. I have never heard of or experienced a bolt falling out.

    It would be nice to be able to buy more than one bolt.
    But, there are several Aftermarket suppliers for them.

    Funny. Almost every serious benchrest action owes its origin to the Remington 700 action. Not Winchester, not Sako, and certainly not Ruger, Savage, or Steyr. All competitive benchrest actions use Remington 700 basic design and simply add to the rigidity and mass to achieve even greater stability and mounting area for heavy contour barrel and heavier action lug.

    I own a few Ruger products, and they are pretty durable. None has any of the grace and elegance I associate with Colt, Remington, Browning, and Winchester. Ruger has always been about cutting costs. The MkI was a cheap alternative to the Colt Woodsman. I paid $59 for my Huntsman; but back before visa/mc, few people bought guns with anything but cash. Ruger's cheap-o plinker sold a ton. No Blackhawk ever compared to a Colt model P, no Ruger D/A compared to a Colt or an S&W. The Rugers were built cheap, but functional.

    No need to apologize for Rugers. They are what they are, and ain't what they ain't. One thing they ain't is accurate. The rest of the argument falls from there if you are concerned with accuracy in highpower rifles.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    S.E. Alaska
    Posts
    198

    Talking Remington 700 safety

    Lester,
    Almost everything you say makes sense, and I agree with you. The few exceptions are not big enough items to argue seriously. As I said before, although Remington 700s have many redeeming qualities, the safety is the foremost reason why I donít own a Remington 700.

    In order to fix it adequately to suit me, I would have to have a gunsmith replace it with one of those 3 position Winchester style safeties, which are so popular to upgrade a Mauser. Thatís an expensive item, when it is reasonable to expect the safety to be adequate from the factory. And the expense doesnít stop there. The bottom metal for custom stuff is even more expensive. There are plenty of good aftermarket triggers for the 700 Ė for good reason, but thatís true of Rugers too, and many other makes.

    There is little that can be done about the push feed situation with the Remington 700. It just is. Personally I donít have too much issue with push feed actions, but over the Remington I would choose the old Winchester 70, the older Sako, or the Weatherby Vanguard, because the extractor is so much better designed on the latter three.

    The Ruger comes with a correct safety, and if a guy just wants steel bottom metal rather than aluminum, it can be bought from Ruger at a very reasonable price Ė or Brownells. I like the integral scope bases of the Ruger too.

    I agree with you about the Ruger stock, which I am not fond of. However, I have very few rifles with factory stocks. None of my favorite rifles have factory stocks Ė they have all been replaced. That would also be true if I owned a Remington 700. My favorite is the McMillan Ė specifically the style that is a copy of the Sako Hunter. They have adopted this stock to fit many action types Ė including Mauser, Winchester, Ruger, and I think Remington, and of course the Sako, and perhaps others. There are many good replacement stocks on the market today.

    It may be true that the 700 action is more appropriate for bench rest or target shooting. Itís interesting that I have often seen the safety completely removed from such custom rifles. As I remember, itís not the 700 action that is favored but the other similar action (I forget the # designation) which is designed specifically for BR shooting. It looks and functions like the 700, but without the magazine for rigidity, and itís heavier too.

    I would not wager any money against a Remington 700 competing (on targets) with any other (American made) hunting rifle. That is a sad statement, because I believe there are some foreign made factory rifles which will out shoot or shoot as accurately as the Remington. I would like to see this notion tested with the Vanguard MOA for starters. Is that Montana rifle we hear so much good about actually made in Montana?

    I donít shoot competition, varmints, or bench rest, or tactical. I do shoot targets to test hand loads, and to sight in my rifles. I have rifles on the Mauser í98 action, Winchester 70 Ė push feed & CRF, and Ruger 77 MK II. On all these action types, I have been able to achieve more accuracy than I can actually use. Now, I must qualify that statement by saying that achieving this is rare with a factory barrel. I had one Ruger, within the last two years, in 338 which was accurate enough to suit me. Maybe itís a trend Ė I dunno. A friend talked me out of it after seeing the targets. He is a good friend, and I already have an accurate 338. But, my point is that all the accuracy needed for hunting situations can be achieved with the above mentioned actions, and others too.

    So, for me the Remington 700 has nothing to offer that I canít achieve to my satisfaction with other makes of rifles. And the 700 has some issues that I canít fix to my satisfaction Ė namely and first is the safety Ė second and least is the extractor - and more. The elegance of a rifle is usually defined by the stock, and the factory Remington stock isnít good enough to cause me to buy one.

    Regards,
    KB

  19. #19
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,428

    Default Remingtons...

    Lester,

    I'll choose to disagree with most of your comments about Remington.

    Remington actions are used to build competition/marksman rifle by some simply because they are the easiest (cheapest) to modify, good parts are available, Sako extractors, beefier recoil lugs, Timney triggers, (no safety is used on most) and they bed tight into a stock.

    B/R shooters roots go back to Remington because Mike Walker was design engineer for Remington back in the forty's, fifty's and sixty's and he was a champion B/R shooter. He brought about the #1 B/R round (and the first real winner)...the 222 Rem. He designed the 700 action for ease of manufacture. You will look for a long while before you find a serious B/R shooter with a Remington rifle today. You will see Hart, Borden, Nesika, and many other custom actions and all are custom barrels.

    Let's look at the 700 action.

    Recoil lug-Just a big washer stuck on the barrel before it is screwed to the action, then cut to shape. No that's not cheap.

    Extractor-A thin ring of spring steel jammed into the bolt face cut out, with a bent lip to snag the rim of the case. No that's not cheap.

    Ejector-A tiny little plunger with a tiny little spring to push on it, all stuck in a hole drilled into the bolt face, to rest on the cartridge head, when loaded. No that's not cheap.

    Safety-A piece of stamped steel bent in different directions, pinned to the side of the not so elegant trigger housing, with bent tabs to do all critical work. No that's not cheap.

    Bolt release- Another piece of stamped steel, bent this way and that, with a another flimsy push tab in a very difficult to push place, and a strong tendancy to stay pushed. No that's not cheap.

    Remington in the military market. The first Remington Army rifle were the M40. Which were the more rigid 540 B/R actions, not the M700. And all of these rifle had to be reworked by Gale McMillan, to meet the requirements. None had Remington barrels and all had heavy rigid one piece scope mounts.

    Also I was issued three bolt action rifles of foreign manufacture while in the Navy and none were even similar to a Remington. When attending the Army school to shoot these M40 rifles it was fully noted how these rifles were extensively modified.

    The "milled from a solid block of steel" actions are so flexible that a very rigid scope mount of one piece hardened steel is screwed to the top to add enough rigidity to allow accurate long range shooting. The flexible receiver is the single biggest factor in regard to inaccuracy.

    Now with all these many merits of the Rimington M700 rifle so noted I will say they make a helluva rifle for the money. They are fully adequate for field use, with only a few bugs, and have acceptable hunting accuracy. It has always amazed me how Remington and Ruger can sell a rifle so "cheaply", obviously they use "less expensive" parts and processes.

    There are obviously places and parts where improvements can be made as all folks aren't entirely satisfied with either rifle.

    The problem is one of money and manufacture. Champaigne tastes on a beer budget, or I can only afford junk! Most of us, even the well healed, won't pay $2000 for a hunting rifle. (Remember the pre-64 Winchester) So to stay in buisness Remington and of course other American gun makes who mass produce guns, must make $600 rifles and lots of them. I did not compare Remington to $2000 rifles, for if I had I assure it would pale on every count. I compared one particular aspect of the M700 to the same point on another $600 rifle of American manufacture and it lost the match. That's all. I'm glad you like your Remington.
    Last edited by Murphy; 09-17-2006 at 13:37.
    Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?



  20. #20
    New member reuben_j_cogburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    285

    Default Montana action

    Quote Originally Posted by Kabluewy View Post
    Lester,
    Is that Montana rifle we hear so much good about actually made in Montana?[/FONT][/SIZE]

    When I called Montana Rifle Company to enquire about them I was informed that the actions are made by Ruger.........


    reuben...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •