When will Remington get their quality control back in check? Maligned Chambers

[1longshot]

   It has been 5 years now that I have been seeing problems with the Remington chambers on their production rifles.  I am writing this post because I have long been a Remington 700 fan, but I can say with certainty that I will not buy another Remington ANYTHING until quality control is brought back to a standard where it is  obviously noticeable that Remington chambers are cut concentric to the bore.  Neither will I give any credence to those people who feel they can't see that this problem does not exist in large numbers of Factory model 700 and model 7 rifles produced by Remington.

For those who have not taken a keen look at their recently manufactured Remington 700 or model 7 rifle, and if you have a keen eye for detail it may be worth while for you to examine the throat area of your rifle after you give it a good cleaning.  The defect, or as Remington says "within standards" so it is okay, is noticeable in many recently produced Remington rifles.  After cleaning your rifle hold the muzzle to the light, preferably outdoor light but any bright light will do.  Rotate the rifle in a circular motion while looking at the throat area of the chamber right where the edge of the neck of the cartridge sits in the chamber.  The defect will look like a small crescent of metal to one side of the chamber, a raised lip of metal.  This raised lip is formed from the chamber reamer cutting more into one side the barrel instead of exactly to center with the bore.  This raised lip causes a copper sliver to be shaved from the bullet when the cartridge is fired deforming the bullet, causing excessive copper fouling and degrading accuracy.  

To give some credibility to my observation I would like to say that in the time I worked at Bass Pro shops as a gun sales clerk I saw this in more rifles than I could count.  It was not in every rifle but it was in a large number of them.  It was in the model 700 bdl ss .243 I purchased and had re barreled while I worked there.  It is in the .308 limited edition 700 lvsf rifle I currently own, and it was in the rifle that I examined this weekend, a light tactical .308 with the HS Precision stock.  

This is a brand new rifle that I thought was very attractive, and I was interested in purchasing at Outdoor World in Ely, Nevada.  After asking the clerk to see the rifle I promptly removed the bolt and examined the area as described above.  Sure enough there was the crescent of steel protruding from one side of the chamber at the area the bullet first meets the lands.  What a disappointment!  Remington goes to all the work to putting their "trynite" coating, H-S precision stock and new X-mark pro trigger on this beautiful rifle only to completely screw up the most important part, the chamber.  Why?  The clerk behind the counter also observed this flaw.  I hope you are listening Remington.  Get it together.

1longshot

[Graybeard]

Not to say you are not seeing a problem in your rifle but I doubt many folks have purchased a lot more new Model Seven and R700 rifles than me in the time period you mention.

I don't look for problems I look for accuracy. Mine have delivered it. Perhaps rather than searching for defects you should just shoot the guns and see how they perform.

I've not bought a new or used Remington M700 or Seven in the last ten to 12 years that if a varmint rifle wouldn't shoot well under an inch for five shots at 100 with most loads fed it and under a half inch for loads it likes. Groups down to the .2s and .3s seem common with all M700 Varmint rifles I've owned or seen.

For sporter weight rifles my criteria is three shots under an inch and if I can't find that fairly quickly I check the bedding and if needed make a minor adjustment. Most of the time the only thing I do is reduce the trigger pull to around three pounds. With that and nothing more it's rare for any of the dozens I've bought to fail to deliver sub inch three shot groups at 100 yards both with factory ammo and reloads.

It seems to me that if a very high percentage of them were getting out bad and inaccurate that in the dozens I've bought and shot at least some of them would have found their way home with me. 

[diggler1833]

You ever build a rifle around a custom (Surgeon/Bat/Stiller...etc...etc...) action, with a hand-lapped cut rifled barrel?  There is a reason why you don't get the same quality out of your $600 Remmy from the factory.  Only other option would be for Remington to build nothing but $2K + rifles.  You get what you pay for...and in a lot of times a bit more since some Remmys out of the factory can shoot bugholes, even with less than stellar workmanship.

I bought a 700SS 5R a few years ago.  Bore centerline was so far off it took me 16MOA  just to get my scopes to zero (verified off of two bases, two sets of rings, and three scopes).  Anywho, the rifle shot consitantly in the .4MOA range at 100 and 200yds, and would occasionally break into the .3's and even the .2's a couple of times.

There are barrels that look like potato fields through a borescope that shoot bugholes too.  Just goes to prove that you can't knock it 'til you've tried it.

[Bigeasy]

Everyone knows Remington uses imported Russian square drill bits....

[1longshot]

Thank you everyone for your responses.  It is understandable that you can't expect custom rifle type smithing in a factory rifle.  Also, I can't claim any accuracy issues for those people who have barrels that are chambered as I described above.  So maybe Remington is on to something.  I have not had nearly as many Remington rifles as you have Graybead.  In my time I have had or have a(n), .223 vssf, bughole shooter, .223 lvsf won't shoot 55gr bullets for anything, .243 bdl ss circa 94 shot great, 243 bdl ss laminate with obviously maligned chamber did not shoot it and immediately replaced barrel with a Hart of same taper, .243 model 7 SS shot good for a willow stick 1 1/4" mostly .308 adl circa 1972 shot okay with most loads, .308 lvsf shoots around an inch with one load sometimes and has an obviously maligned chamber, 7mm Rem mag circa 1982, shoots great.  I don't recall any others at the present moment.  I have however seen many Remington's shoot very well. 

My point in this thread is not accuracy, although the measure of a firearm in many peoples opinion is accuracy only.  I agree that this is a very important aspect.  Probably the most important.   However,  in comparison to Remington rifles of yester year I have to say that quality has waned.  That is what I am saying.  I bought a savage model 16 in .243 the other day and guess what? The chamber at least to the naked eye looks square.  When I was selling guns at bass pro shop I not only examined Remmy chambers but all the bolt rifles we sold; Browning, Savage, Ruger, Tikka, Kimber, Weatherby and Winchester.  The Chambers of the Remmys looked the worst every time and never did I see a chamber cut out of square with the bore except for in Remington's.  Now your average shooter will probably never care about this. But, I figure a if all of these other guys can pull off the chambering job why can't Remington.

I guess if accuracy is good enough for everyone all I am doing is puffing hot air.

I remember when the CDL SF came out in 30-06 we received 3 from Remington right away at Bass Pro in Vegas.  I examined the chambers of all three, two were obviously cut untrue.  Really like that model too.

Now after Huffing and Puffing over this I guess I might have to reconsider my first declaration of not every buying a Remington until they get their quality control back on, but I will definitely not buy one with a obviously maligned chamber.

I would really like to buy the Tactical model I mention above that worked me up.  I don't know if I can find a dealer willing to take as many back as I request until I find one with straight chamber to bore.

Thanks again for the responses.

[diggler1833]

Oh I have no doubt that Remington has and will still occasionally make a junk rifle, but I consider those the exception, and not the norm.

[Graybeard]

My point in this thread is not accuracy, although the measure of a firearm in many peoples opinion is accuracy only.

I happen to fall into that category. To me a rifle is a tool nothing more and nothing less. Its job is to deliver bullets to where I point it. So long as it does that I'm a happy camper. By and large Remington rifles do that more consistently than any other factory made rifle I've seen.

Oh I have no doubt that Remington has and will still occasionally make a junk rifle, but I consider those the exception, and not the norm.

Yup I agree with that I've even had one or two that weren't up to par as I got them. Only had to sent two back and they took care of both of them post haste at their expense, didn't cost me one red cent.

I even bought a used LSS Mtn. Rifle in .260 Remington once that the dealer told me had been bought and returned within a week for a different brand. I figured it had to have some sorta problem but wasn't worried. Turned out the stock had been cut wrong. The barrel channel was off center and putting pressure on the barrel on one side.

I called Remington and explained the situation completely to them. They asked me for a SN on the rifle which I gave them and they shipped me a new stock and asked me to return the defective one in the box they shipped my replacement in. With the new stock it was a fine shooter just as I expected and cost me nothing to make it one.

My eyes aren't good enough at close range to see the chamber well enough to know if it was off or not to be honest. My measure of quality is how small that group is on the target. The rest just really don't matter.

[George Foster]

I have to say if accuracy was my only criteria for owning a rifle or rifles I would own only Savage rifles.  The two I had were more accurate than my Remington 700's that I own.  I got rid of the Savages because my Ruger 77's and Rem 700's are better looking rifles.  In fact my Rugers are just as accurate as my Remingtons contrary to a lot of peoples beliefs.  I have shot smaller three or five shot groups with my Rugers than with my Remingtons using the handloads all of them like the best.

[crash87]

My 1st Remington was a Mountain Rifle bought 1st year introduced (1986) Loved it, still do, the only "go to rifle" in the safes. Accurate is defined by this rifle. As I became a more experienced reloader I went and  and purchaced, more precise equipment, one being a bullet concenticity gauge from Sinclair. Checking  case neck runout to adjust the sizing die. Some dies were even sent back to the factory for replacement. One day I decided to check the .280 cases "after" firing. OH! OH! .0025" runout! I wish I never would have done that, as I then had to check everything. Just a whisper of movement on everything else and I attribute that to the brass variation. Will I get rid of this rifle, NO, will I have it rebarreled? NO. For a pencil thin barreled featherweight this gun shoots, always has, i.e. sub inch groups @ 100 yds and those are 5 shots.
         Another 700 was a first year production stainless in 7MM MAG. Could not really figure out why my brass would show signs and a few times did, of seperating after 3 reloadings. Again, as I gained experience in the art of reloading, I started setting up resizing dies with headspace gauges also, setting back the shoulder to minimum. To do this of course, you check case dimension from base to datum of fired case from your rifle. What about a new case? OH! OH! My cases were stretching .020" on the first firing! It would seem they ran that reamer a little deep, "But still within spec" of course. Apparently the damage was done at the beginning to justify there short life at the end. Will I get rid of this rifle, again NO. Will I send it back to have them fix it?, again no. My fix is to fireform the brass to the chamber and never look back. Oh sure it is still another firing, but I usually only get serious with load development , after, fire forming a case to the chamber of any rifle. AND, this to is, one accurate rifle.
           I guess My point to all this is that, if you think Remington is having quality control issue's now, it would seem, to me, they have always had quality control issues. I'm with the accuracy crowd on this one, as you can see. Because, if I hadn't wanted to advance in my reloading precision, I would never have found out about my apparent problems with my rifles, problems, that are of no consequense because these rifles, apparently, don't have to be perfect to shoot accuratley.
           My advice, for what it is worth, is to close your eyes to the chamber and shoot 'em and see. That, I presume, won't be the case, so pick an action and have what you want done, by a gunsmith, who will build you what you want, Perfection. Please note also, that that, is not a bad thing. CRASH87

[safetysheriff]

If anybody wants to know about the quality of Remington rifles, just ask a gunsmith who builds them up for competition.    They'll tell all you need to know about the actions.     As for the barrels, I'm with 'GB'; having worked on a few out-of-the-box Remingtons to tune them.    I find their factory barrels are more than good enough.    I'll stick with Remington unless I see one hell of a bargain on a Ruger or a Weatherby Vanguard.   

I can't help but question why a (former?) Bass Pro shop employee might otherwise be knocking the Remingtons.......

ss'   

[Graybeard]

While far from my first Remington rifle I also bought one of those original Mtn. Rifles as my first "mountain rifle". I wanted a .280 Remington in the worst way but all the store had was .270 and .30-06 and since they were going out of business wouldn't order me a .280 so I chose the .270. Man I wish I'd kept that rifle. It was super accurate and went with me on lots of hunts all over the country. Like a fool I let it go and have missed it every since.

I also picked up an original Model Seven when they first put them out a 7-08 with 18.5" barrel. It never really shot that well with factory or reloaded ammo but in all the years we've had that rifle it's never missed and never required a second shot. I used it for years then our oldest son used it and now it belongs to my wife with the stock cut to her length. The first critter taken with it was a noisy squirrel that kept barking at me all the time I was sighting it in. The shot was close to 80 yards I'd guess. As I said with three of us shooting it the rifle has never missed or required a second shot on any game animal and it has taken a huge truck load of game of all sorts.

A couple years ago I tried Hornady Light Mag ammo in it for the first time and that danged old rifle that had never shot a group much under 1.5" at 100 yards and that most groups ran well over that fired its first sub inch group. As long as it's fed Hornady Light Mag ammo that old rifle is a sum MOA shooter. Who'd a thunk it.

[torpedoman]

My only question is;  If you have know of that defect for so long why have you kept buying them?

[1longshot]

I guess the reason I have kept buying them is for reasons cited above.  I really appreciate the way Remington rifles look.  Most of the ones I have had have shot very well for a factory rifle.  I like the way the bolt slides so smooth and tight lock up when closed.  I prefer the barrel contour on Remington sporter rifles above all others.  The BLD line and forestock has always given me a warm feeling. 

This is why when I started noticing this problem with them I really wondered what was going on. 

But most replies here indicate that their rifles shoot regardless. 

An observation to note:  This week I observed the maligned cut chamber issue in a Model 700 SPS tactical .308.  The same thing as above mentioned in yet another random rifle I picked up at the store in a different town.  Will the rifle shoot well?  According to previous posts probably.  Is it something most average Remington customers will ever notice?  If the above posts represent some of the more experienced people who own and shoot model 700's then my guess would be no.

I am going to start looking at the chambers of older Remingtons in Pawn shops and such to see if this problem is as prevalent in them as the new and will let you guys know my findings as time passes.  Do any of you experience better accuracy from your older rifles vs. your new ones? 

Interesting about your model 7 GB.  It always amazes me when a rifle shoots like that.  I was amazed to find my Remington lvsf that won't shoot 55grainers of any sort worth a darn, 1 1/2" + size groups, will shoot clovers with the 40gr sierra HP varminter with nearly any load of benchmark and bullet seated very shallow in the case.  I think minimal neck tension might have something to do with it but I can't say for sure. Maybe the fluted barrel warps as it increases in temperature.  I have tried a variety of bullets and poweders to no avail.  Even factory loads. I really like that rifle but can't figure out why 55s won't shoot out of it.  The crown looks good. It is glass bedded, jewell trigger, and floated.  I tried a pressure point at the forend of the barrel without luck.  Maybe and HS precision stock would help?  I haven't done the twist check on it.  I would hate to find out a 1 in 14" twist barrel was screwed on it.  No that is just paranoia.

If I sound overly critical of a factory rifles finish work and seem to expect more for my money than so be it.  Like I said above if the other companies can get this right and still sell at a similar price point why can't Remington?  If I find a Remington that I like and don't notice this problem in the chamber area then I will think about the purchase but I won't buy another Remmy with the chamber looking like the ones I have seen and have purchased in the past.  My 7 mag chamber looks fine. It was made in '82.


   

[Graybeard]

Do any of you experience better accuracy from your older rifles vs. your new ones?

 

Just the opposite really. Rifles in general regardless of brand are shooting better these days than they did 20-30 or more years ago. Part of it might be better ammo but I think they are being made on better equipment and to tighter tolerances is why.

It's your money and you can spend it as you please. Personally I think you are physicing youreself out and for nothing. You might be seeing what you say and you might only have convinced yourself you are. I dunno. My eyes aren't good enough to see that detail these days.

I'll put my faith in how they shoot and let you worry about how it looks.

[1longshot]

Thank you for continuing this discussion.  I thought it would turn into something ugly and that was not my intention.  I would have to agree with you that tolerances have been getting better over the years.  The design of the 17 HMR bullet and cartridge and ability to mass produce small diameter barrels that shoot very good is one example that really shines.  I also appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt that I am not just seeing things.   

I am glad that you are enjoying your rifles.  And hope that I will enjoy another new Remington in the future.

As for now, I can't afford any more.  I have other responsibilities to tend to.

Thanks again everyone for their replies.

[Graybeard]

I sure remember in the early days of .17s that bores fouled in so few shots to be almost useless. Progress was made and today it is quite amazing how many 4000 fps plus shots can be pushed down them before fouling is a problem. Same with barrel life in the early days of the .220 Swift it was burned out in a hurry but now it takes a lot of shooting to do that.

I don't really know what process any of the companies use so sure can't say how they shake out or how they look. My old tired eyes can't see nuttin up close anyway so small detail long ago was lost on me. I can still see the cross hairs in my scopes tho and can sure enough make smaller groups than I could in the days of my youth when I was able to see up close detail.

I have owned Remington rifles since shortly after the M700 came into being and can promise you those earlier ones never delivered the groups those of today do. The old Winchester M70 was supposed to be "the rifleman's rifle" but the newer ones shoot rings around those old pre '64s from the factory.

Someone once said "ony accurate rifles are interesting" I tend to agree.

[diggler1833]

+1 on accurate guns.

Now if I could only find an accurate gun that I could still leave alone and not start tinkering with.

[ed k]

Good  discusion. I've always had good luck with my model 700 as far as accuracy. Had a 270 and my 300 win mag. Both sub moa from the factory.
Wore out a barrel on the 300 and bought a factory takeoff. Had a buddy set it up and have a 2.55 inch group at 600yards. Maybe the bores out of line but i'm a very happy camper. I'm with the other guys  on this . If it shoots good i'm happy.  ed k

[ed k]

On another remington i bought last year i do have a problem.  Its a xr-100 single shot in 22-250 that won't shoot the 55 grainers very well. About an inch or so at 100 yards. Might have to try the 40's that someone mentioned and see if it does better. Thanks for the tip.  ED K

[Wyo. Coyote Hunter]

  GB, I am pretty sure your quote, "only accurate rifles are interesting," was made my Col. Whelen....When I look at some of the groups he mentions, our rifles are far more accurate than those of his time......

[diggler1833]

Very true Wyo.

ed k...you aren't complaining that your XR-100 is only a MOA gun are you?    Even though they came with a 1:14" twist, it may need a lighter bullet, or with the extremely long throat that Remingtons are famous for, you could try seating the bullet out a bit further as well.

I'm surprised Swampman hasn't come in here and nuked anyone yet over this thread.

[Wyo. Coyote Hunter]

  ed k, while I have shot thousands of 55 grain bullets, my favorite gunman of the past was Bob Hagel...I remember him saying he never had top accuracy from 55 grain bullets in the .22 cal...I cannot say that...Horn. 55 grain and Serria 55 grain BTHP all shoot very well in my rifles..I really seldom worry about extremely small groups, like benchrest size, because of the style of hunting I do, but I want accuracy, and they always shot much less than 1 inch......

[ed k]

Ya im just a whiner i guess. Just makes me wonder when my 300 win mag and 270wsm both shoot better than the 22-250. i've always shot 55 grainers in my 22-250's but i got this gun last year and about 1 inch is as good as it will do. I prefer heavier bullets but maybe 40 is the one this gun needs. I'll try some in a month or so when winters gone. i figured if small cal wont shoot id try something bigger so i picked up a Buffalo Classic to play with.  ED K

[Wyo. Coyote Hunter]

   ed k, I have had excellent luck with the new horn. and serria plastic tipped bullets only have used the 50 grain, but according to serria, they are the length of the old style 55..so one gets more speed with the longer lighter bullets....also H 4895 has proved and excellent powder for my rifles... I started using it late in life...I was probably well past 50 when I bought my first batch...before I retired I stocked up on a bunch of it...there are many powders for the .22-250, but this one has worked very well in half a dozen rifles......some of the heavy Rem. would shoot tighter than I could hold.....

[burntmuch]

All my Remingtons are good shooters. The only one that wouldnt shoot under an inch with my reloads is my model 7 with a thin 18 inch barrel. But 1.5 inch groups dont bother me. My 1962 700 7mag gave me my first ever 1 hole group. In front of a couple buddies Which is a bonus for sure. My 700 223 gave me my first .5 or smaller group with my reloads. Im fairly new at reloading.  So that was cool. my 700 whelen shoots right at an inch. but to be honest it hurts a bit to shoot so I dont shoot it much My newest is the 700 VLS in 308. Its shooting real good so far. couple groups at .4 so far. My next rifle will probably be a remington 700 or another model 7. Their good rifles for the money. I guess Ive never looked at the chambers that close before. They are purty guns though.  oh as far as the 55 grain bullets. arent those a bit heavy for a 1-12 twist barrel. I ran out of 40 grain Vmaxes for my 223, & I found some 52 grain Nosler bthps. I was gonna try those

[diggler1833]

Had good luck with my 700 in .223 again today.  If it weren't for the one group, I would have averaged under 1/2 MOA at 100yds.  Still had three groups of 5 shots under 1/2" though.  At 200 my inability to really get things going in the wind opened up the average to .8 MOA.

Not bad for a $500 factory barreled action (after I sold off the stock). 

[Wyo. Coyote Hunter]

 ;)burnt, I would say 55 grain would be fine in a 1-12 twist rifle..all of my  .22's are 1-14...even my rebarreled .223. I shoot 55's in all and get good to excellent accuracy....in these rifles I have used up to 63 grain serria and 64 grain winchester both with excellent accuracy...At times I tried 70 grain speer in several of my old .22-250's and accuracy was excellent, BUT these bullets were designed for rifles with slower twists..The match ammo Catfish fires would not stabilize in the slow twists that I use...for my purpose, I like the 50 -55 grain bullets with some 40 grain in p.dogs loads for my 223..if I feel I want an 80 grain bullet, I got to something like my .25-06......

[ed k]

diggler- nice groups. This was what i was hoping for from my gun. Maybe this summer i can work it out. Smaller calibers also seem more fickle for me.

[Doe Dumper]

 As for the old vs new Remmy debate my new 700's are better shooters. I have 6 ranging from early 70's-2005. Oldest is a 30-06 seems to shoot everything to bout everything decent but not great. Theres a 243 circa 83 that will not shoot anything over 85 gr great but is a 1 holer with 85's. A 30-06 BDL circa 89 that shoots everything good and actually prefers 180's. A 270 from 96 that is the best shooting rifle I have...it will group anything you feed it into smaller groups than I am capable of. A 7-08 from 2003 that is a great shooter with 120's and 140's. Last but not least a 2005 7-08 SPS which is proving to be a good shooter however the barrel only has about 100 rounds thru it so its just getting broke in.