« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: 722; The good; the bad; the ugly?  (Read 1354 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rebAL

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 554
722; The good; the bad; the ugly?
« on: September 01, 2011, 05:03:56 AM »
I have a chance to buy one that appears to be in very good condition.  Aside from price, what should I be considering that are unique to this firearm;  Potential problems?  Thanks
Logged

Offline charles p

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2374
  • Gender: Male
Re: 722; The good; the bad; the ugly?
« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2011, 10:24:49 AM »
Show it to your wife and get her opinion.
Logged

Offline rebAL

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 554
Re: 722; The good; the bad; the ugly?
« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2011, 02:42:11 AM »
Thanks for that;  I guess it must be a foolish question;  Anyone else?
Logged

Offline 336SC

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 220
  • Gender: Male
Re: 722; The good; the bad; the ugly?
« Reply #3 on: September 02, 2011, 03:53:48 AM »
No problems with mine in .300 Savage.  The first one's out of the factory were not drilled and tapped on the bridge of the receiver.  Got
past all the QC processes.  My best friend has one and it really is a collector's piece.  Only a handful were shipped with that issue.  Mine is from 1949 and my friends is from 1948.  Gun digest had a write up on that issue with the first 722's shipped.  Some writers claim they
are ugly as fence posts but I trully love the lines on my 722.  Mine is as accurate as any rifle I own!  Kills deer right smart too!  Also got
a long actioned 721 in 30-06 from 1951 and it too is a shooter.  Both have the same basic action as the Remington 700 without the cosmetic changes they made.  I also like the 24" barrels on both of them.
336SC
Logged
USN, 10 Jul 1969 - 6 Dec 1973.  NRA Life Member.  Master Mason, Porter Lodge #284, 10th Masonic District.

Offline rebAL

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 554
Re: 722; The good; the bad; the ugly?
« Reply #4 on: September 02, 2011, 11:23:55 AM »
Thanks 336SC;  After test firing it I decided to buy it.  I'm wondering if I should install sling & swivels.  The stock is in excellent shape and I would prefer to have the gun maintain it's value while still being a useful coyote gun.    Rebal
Logged

Offline charles p

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2374
  • Gender: Male
Re: 722; The good; the bad; the ugly?
« Reply #5 on: September 02, 2011, 12:56:47 PM »
Didn't mean anything negative about a 722.  Just having some fun with your question.  I know in advance what my wife would say about another gun - the same thing I would say if she came home with an arm load of new shoes.
If you like the rifle, and it seems that you do, then go for it and don't look back.  There are several rifles in my rack that I would not purchase again, but for some reason, none are for sale.
As for a sling and scope, they are must have options in my book.
 
 
Logged

Offline OldSchoolRanger

  • Trade Count: (60)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2742
Re: 722; The good; the bad; the ugly?
« Reply #6 on: September 02, 2011, 07:26:34 PM »
charles p - I'm sure rebAL didn't take it that way. ::)   
But, I know your reasoning behind that answer.  I just avoid the problem altogether.  I boldly walk into the house with the gun (when she's not home, of course.  What??  You think I'm stupid? :o ). The next time she sees the gun, I always say: "I bought this gun years ago"  ;D

In regards to the question, I say buy the gun.  The difference between the 722 and 721, if I remember correctly was the length.  And getting back to your question the difference between the 700 and the 722 is mostly cosmetic.  I think the main difference between the two rifles was the angle of the bolt handle.  The 700's bolt handle sweeps backwards, and the 721/722's were 90 degrees.  Enjoy your new rifle.
Logged
"You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts." - Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

When you allow a lie to go unchallenged, it becomes the truth.

My quandary, I personally, don't think I have enough Handi's but, I know I have more Handi's than I really need or should have.

Offline rebAL

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 554
Re: 722; The good; the bad; the ugly?
« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2011, 02:36:13 AM »
No Problamo charlesP;  I have also followed Old School Ranger's technique with regard to previous purchases.  From what little research I've done,t looks like 722's are being sold for $500 & up.  I got mine much cheaper.  I'm still debating the sling as I want the gun to retain its' value.
Logged

Offline Lloyd Smale

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18285
Re: 722; The good; the bad; the ugly?
« Reply #8 on: September 03, 2011, 03:09:23 AM »
in my opinion not the prettiest girl at the dance but ive yet to see one that wasnt an exceptional shooter.
Logged
blue lives matter

Offline pastorp

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (46)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4697
  • Gender: Male
Re: 722; The good; the bad; the ugly?
« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2011, 05:44:36 AM »
In my opinion a hunting gun demands a sling, a range gun dosen't need one.  :o I would decide what I wanted to do with the rifle and then decide on the sling.  ;) If it's a colector piece, you really don't want to hunt it. Hunting guns get dinged up even when your careful with them. So either hunt it and recieve your enjoyment out of using it or put it up as a colector piece, with occasional trips to the range.... ;)

Thats what I do with my guns..Regards,
Logged
Byron

Christian by choice, American by the grace of God.

NRA LIFE

Offline 600RemGuy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: 722; The good; the bad; the ugly?
« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2011, 06:13:32 AM »
Quote from: rebAL on September 01, 2011, 05:03:56 AM
I have a chance to buy one that appears to be in very good condition.  Aside from price, what should I be considering that are unique to this firearm;  Potential problems?  Thanks

What caliber is she?
Logged

Offline Wyo. Coyote Hunter

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1839
Re: 722; The good; the bad; the ugly?
« Reply #11 on: September 03, 2011, 09:14:24 AM »
 ;)  The 722 could have a problem if you have to replace the extractor...otherwise, Ihave had half a dozen, and they were all fine shooters...my pal shoots one in a .222, deadly...
Logged

Offline Lloyd Smale

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18285
Re: 722; The good; the bad; the ugly?
« Reply #12 on: September 03, 2011, 10:33:21 AM »
my buddy too has a 222 and its the most accurate sporter weight gun of any caliber ive ever shot. It pretty much will shoot 1/4 inch groups with loads it likes.
Logged
blue lives matter

Offline rebAL

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 554
Re: 722; The good; the bad; the ugly?
« Reply #13 on: September 03, 2011, 12:54:24 PM »
Logged

Offline JPShelton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 460
Re: 722; The good; the bad; the ugly?
« Reply #14 on: November 13, 2011, 10:17:42 PM »
I had a chance to buy a 721 in .270 that was in "new in the box" condition but sans box, and I didn't hesitate.  The 721 is, of course, just the "long action version" of the 722.  To me, these old rifles include everything about the M-700 that I like -the symetrical action, the "three rings of steel" breeching, fast lock time, crisp "Walker" trigger, and so on, while omitting one of the the checkered and oddly shaped (to my palm) bolt knob.
 
I like the "all business" styling of the 721/722 also.  Not so enthused about the blind magazine but that is correctible with M-700 bottom metal.
 
Aside from having a blind magazine, only downside that I can see with a 721/722 is the exctractor, and the only problem that I can see with that is that direct replacements are difficult to come by IF you break one.  If one is broken, a gunsmith I know assures me that he could make a new one, modify the bolt for a SAKO or AR-10 type extractor, or possibly even modify it to take a M-700 part.  The point is that a broken extractor need not end the rifle's service life or reduce it to wallhanger status.
 
Another pain that I ran into was minor and came when I set about mounting my 3-9X Leupold to the rifle.  The leaf spring rear sight interfered with scope mounting.  This .30-30 carbine-like sight is dovetailed into a "dog knot" form on the barrel.  I simply removed the elevator from the sight, drifted it out, and re-installed it "backwards" or with the leaf extending toward the muzzle.  This way, it doesn't interfere with scope mounting and I can mount the scope low, there isn't an ugly unfilled dovetail slot to spoil the looks, and I have a functional rear sight as a back-up, in case I ever need it.
 
I'd very much like to find a clean 722 in .222 Remington.  In my view, this is the rifle that Remington built its reputation for accuracy on. 
 
The 721/722 rifles aren't fancy, but they hail from an era when craftsmanship mattered and they'll probably do anything a new 700 ADL would.
 
JP
Logged

Offline eastbank

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 401
Re: 722; The good; the bad; the ugly?
« Reply #15 on: November 13, 2011, 11:22:28 PM »
here,s my first year 722 in .222rem.,it,s been shot,but i have not shot it yet. eastbank.
Logged

Offline eastbank

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 401
Re: 722; The good; the bad; the ugly?
« Reply #16 on: November 13, 2011, 11:33:06 PM »
here,s my first year 721 in 3006,with out rear reciever tapped for a scope and the serial number is inside the left bolt race way. i have hunted this rifle and killed several deer with it,useing the open sights. it shoots 165grs best. eastbank.
Logged

Offline oneoldsap

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 220
Re: 722; The good; the bad; the ugly?
« Reply #17 on: November 14, 2011, 01:16:41 AM »

 
 
                    That Dog Knot is called a sight boss .  No one has built a more solid rifle than the 721-722 yet and it's been over 60 years since it's introduction ! My friend has a 722 in .222 Rem. that is just incredibly accurate , quite often you can't see where the second shot went , it shoots so tight . I've been trying to wrest it from him for 25 years , no luck .
Logged

Offline JPShelton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 460
Re: 722; The good; the bad; the ugly?
« Reply #18 on: November 14, 2011, 07:34:35 PM »
Quote from: oneoldsap on November 14, 2011, 01:16:41 AM

 
 
                    That Dog Knot is called a sight boss .  No one has built a more solid rifle than the 721-722 yet and it's been over 60 years since it's introduction ! My friend has a 722 in .222 Rem. that is just incredibly accurate , quite often you can't see where the second shot went , it shoots so tight . I've been trying to wrest it from him for 25 years , no luck .

The quote above is exactly why I want a nice 722 in .222.  I might not go so far as to say that "no one has built a more solid rifle than the 721-722 yet" but I sure wouldn't trade my 721 for a new 700.  There are some obvious concessions to economy of manufacture with the 721/722 compared to stuff that hailed from pre-WWII days, but the build quality still seems very high to me.  There may be a few untuned sporter weight .270 caliber rifles out there that will best my ol' girl in the accuracy department, but she'd give most new, out of the box high-power sporters a serious bit of competition where precision projectile delivery is concerned. She might not be the "belle of the ball" in the looks department, but she ain't exactly ugly, either, and the groups she prints are a thing of beauty unto themselves.  In sum, my 721 is worth a whole lot more to me than the paltry price I paid for it.
 
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »