Author Topic: problem with new Model Seven (Read 3816 times)

bukfevr · « **on:** November 24, 2007, 01:56:56 PM »

I bought a Model Seven CDL in 7MM-08. I finally got my scope and was ready to get it mounted and shoot this thing. This is the problem...I have tried Weaver bases, Warne Maxima bases (2 sets), and Leupold STD. When I mounted the bases on this gun, the front base is .045 lower than the rear base. So, I tried the other 2 brands of bases and all three are the same. I checked this with a metal straight edge laid flat on the rear base. There is a gap of .045 between the straight edge and the front base. This seems to be a problem with the receiver of the gun to me. What should I do now? Any ideas?

safetysheriff · « **Reply #1 on:** November 24, 2007, 04:18:42 PM »

i recently brought one wrong base to a friend's house to put a scope on a new rifle. he had the correct one. i hadn't recognized my mistake 'til two friends pointed it out to me.

do you have all the right parts?

take care,

ss'

DalesCarpentry · « **Reply #2 on:** November 24, 2007, 04:26:10 PM »

I about had that happen with my 700. The problem was I had the front and rear bases reversed. You may not have the wrong ones you may just have them switched. Dale

flintlock · « **Reply #3 on:** November 24, 2007, 04:44:27 PM »

There is nothing wrong with the receiver...That gun uses a special base, my brother and a good friend have a Model 7...
The problem is, I can't remember the base it uses...I believe it's one made for the Remington bolt action target pistol...
I'd call Remington, I remember it's a Leupold base...

Graybeard · « **Reply #4 on:** November 24, 2007, 05:31:14 PM »

Since yours is a CDL that means it one of the NEW Model 7s and they DO NOT take the same base as the old Model 7s but most likely that's what you are trying to use. There are several posibile combinations that will work but you must use what is right for the NEW model 7 and the XR-100 rifle which uses the M7 action.

On my M7 CDL I am using the Weaver #35 as the front base and the Weaver #421 as the rear base. I KNOW that works.

bukfevr · « **Reply #5 on:** November 25, 2007, 03:06:30 AM »

If I'm thinking correct, didn't all the older Model 7's only have one hole for base mounting at the rear of the receiver? I was thinking that all the older models required the use of a one piece base. The Weaver bases I tried are the steel Grand Slam #430 rear and #460 front. The Leupold 2 piece STD's I tried are #57277. And the Warne Maxima is # M902/801M. The Leupold and the Warne say "For Remington 7" on the pack, but the Weaver says "For New Model 7, 673". These bases can't be reversed because the front screw holes are alot wider than the rear. The rear screw holes are really close together. Thanks for any help as I really want to get this thing fixed. I have a couple Weaver #35's as it is the same front base as the Model 700 uses. I don't have a #421 though. Any idea what the thickness is on that #421? I can use my caliper and do some calculating and see if it would work.

beemanbeme · « **Reply #6 on:** November 25, 2007, 05:40:58 AM »

Call Remington.

Graybeard · « **Reply #7 on:** November 25, 2007, 07:43:02 AM »

Yes all the older M7s had only one hole at the rear and required a one piece base. The new models have two holes at both front and rear and take totally different bases. The 421 is DEFINITELY the correct one to use in conjunction with the #35. That's what's on my new M7 CDL.

No I don't really know the thickness and I'm not gonna pull my scope off to measure it. It is the correct base as I'm using it on the same gun you've got. If that's not good enough for you then figure it out for yourself.

bukfevr · « **Reply #8 on:** November 25, 2007, 03:28:19 PM »

Well, I went and picked up a #35 and #421 Weaver base today. They did the same thing when I mounted them. The problem has to be with the receiver, as every base set I tried leaves the front base .045 lower than the rear one. I have boxed the gun up and I'm gonna call Remington tomorrow and see what they say. Thanks to all who helped.

Graybeard, I didn't mean for you to pull your scope off your gun, that would be crazy. I thought someone might have the dimensions for Weaver bases. I have their chart that shows dimensions of the steel Grand Slam bases, but I didn't know if the aluminum is the same as they don't show a #421 on there. Little touchy aren't we.

Graybeard · « **Reply #9 on:** November 25, 2007, 07:11:17 PM »

I think you are taking the normal situation and trying to make something of it that is not there. Yes the 421 is thicker than the 35 and that is as it should be. Putting the two of them in place then gives you a flat level surface on which to mount the scope.

Look at your rifle. The front base sits on a round portion of the receiver but the rear base sits on a flattened area of the receiver which means the rear base MUST be thicker to work. Don't over think this thing just use the bases and it will be just fine. They are what you need. Nothing is wrong with that set up. Like they always say in the Movies: Trust me.

jvs · « **Reply #10 on:** November 26, 2007, 09:22:19 AM »

Weaver Base for Remington Rifles - Model 7 (since 1999) & 673

# 35M (48500)... Front Base

# 421M (48444)... Rear Base

Although it is not impossible that you have a bad receiver, it is improbable. But hey, anything can happen.

I looked at one of my 673's and the front mount is more curved than the back mount, the rear mount is much thicker than the front mount, but it has to be to be level. The rear mount hangs over the ejection port, which I personally think is stupid. I also think one piece mounts should be available for these Receivers.

Greybeard is correct. Designated Weaver mounts for the Model 7, which includes the 673, is 35 (Fr) and 421(Rr).

(I originally put this reply in a different thread and it took until today to catch my mistake. Darn Alzheimers...)

bukfevr · « **Reply #11 on:** November 26, 2007, 01:54:36 PM »

I went and picked up a #35 and #421 base. Thought maybe the other bases I tried might be the wrong ones. The 35 and 421 gives me the same thing as the other ones. Graybeard, you nailed it when you said these bases are different thicknesses so you have a flat level surface to mount the rings to. I fully understand that one base is thicker than the other. I have no doubt that I have the right bases for the gun. The problem is that I do not have that flat level surface across the two bases. When I mount the bases to the gun, I can take a metal straightedge and lay flat on the rear base. On the other end of the straightedge, there is a gap between the base and the straightedge that looks to be close to 1/8 inch. I shot this gun with the scope mounted like this and it shot almost 2 feet high at 50 yards with scope optically centered. I don't know what else to try as I would have to shim way too much on the front base to get it right. Time to call Remington I guess. I agree that it is highly unlikely that the receiver is milled wrong, but I can't help but think that this one is as I have tried 4 different sets of bases and end up with the same result each time. I really appreciate the help on this. I'll post back after I find out what Remington says. Thanks again!

Graybeard · « **Reply #12 on:** November 26, 2007, 06:24:40 PM »

There is probably that much adjustment in your scope but when things like that happen it's why I use only Burris Signature Rings. I just break out the box of offset inserts and replace the ZERO inserts with a pair and all is lovely in the world again.

beemanbeme · « **Reply #13 on:** November 27, 2007, 03:07:16 AM »

I would avoid using the scope's adjustment to take up that much misalignment. The closer to center the cross hairs are the better the scope is as far as paralax and adjustments for downrange.
I hate those "one size fits all" bases that lap over into the ejection/loading port. I've been know to hacksaw them off to fit, dress them up with a file and paint them to match if it doesn't come too close to the screw holes.

jvs · « **Reply #14 on:** November 27, 2007, 10:38:29 AM »

I just got a 673 out, one that has a scope mounted on it, and he is right. The front mount does sit lower on the receiver than the rear mount does.

But.....

The front ring makes up for that difference and the scope sits level. The front ring is much thicker than the back ring is.

So, my next question is: Are you sure you have the proper rings on the rifle?

I am not sure I can help you with what rings I have. I got the rings the same time I got the mounts and I don't know what stock number they were. I suggest you look up the rings and see what is supposed to be on your Model 7.

Graybeard · « **Reply #15 on:** November 27, 2007, 12:34:22 PM »

Rings, smings other than for Rugers all rings are born equal. I.E., both of a pair are identical.

I have no doubt it's all an optical illusion and if he will put that #35 at the front and the #421 at the rear and mount a scope in a decent quality pair of rings all will be fine. I use NOTHING but Burris Signature rings as these days I run into way too many new rifles not made correctly and when that does happen the offset inserts will usually fix it. The ONLY gun I've owned it couldn't was one of the TC semiauto rifles. Even with +20s on one end and -20s on the other it still didn't give enough adjustment to sight in. That was the single worse made gun I've ever owned.

bukfevr · « **Reply #16 on:** November 27, 2007, 01:08:53 PM »

You're right Graybeard, all rings should be identical. The only way it could be different is if someone put something like a low ring on the rear and a medium on the front. I have been using Warne rings on all my rifles lately and that is what I bought for the Model 7. By just looking, the difference in thickness of the front and rear base will make you think the front is mounted lower than the rear. I checked mine with the straightedge and a set of feeler gauges and caliper. The Warne rear base is .265 thick. If it was .22 then the bases would be perfectly level. But instead, my rear base is sitting .045 higher than the front one. I have been considering the Burris Signature rings. Is .020 the thickest offset they offer? If so, I could put a +20 on one end and -20 on the other and shim the other .005 under the front base and be good to go. One thing about the Warne Maxima rear base, it barely sticks over the edge of the loading port.

jvs · « **Reply #17 on:** November 27, 2007, 08:43:28 PM »

I used an offset ring on the front, but I did that so I could slide the scope back for proper eye relief without bumping into those adjustment knobs.

hotjob · « **Reply #18 on:** December 05, 2007, 11:02:41 AM »

Dednutz makes a 1 pc. mount for the 7. The 7 and the 700 has the same offset from front to rear. The offset is over .100 of an inch.

jvs · « **Reply #19 on:** December 06, 2007, 07:38:14 PM »

I am in contact with dednutz.com concerning a one piece mount for my 673. I will be sending for one shortly. I had to ask them what height mount I would need because of the vent rib on the 673. They answered my e-mail the next business day.

When I was putting the scope on that rifle, I searched high and low for a one piece mount and could not find one anywhere. Dednutz has them for just about any rifle.

And they are truely one piece, because the rings are also part of fixture. It is a solid one piece attachment.

Thanks for the tip hotjob.

bukfevr · « **Reply #20 on:** December 09, 2007, 04:28:09 AM »

Just for an update, I called Remington and explained what was going on with my gun. They said the problem was most likely caused by the receiver being milled wrong. So my M7 is on its way back to Remington as of 12/5. I'll post again when I hear from them and find out what they do about it. I'll have to check out that Dednutz one piece mount, too.

TLARbb · « **Reply #21 on:** December 30, 2007, 07:19:55 AM »

Did you get your rifle back yet? What did they do? Inquiring minds want to know.

EJ

bukfevr · « **Reply #22 on:** February 02, 2008, 02:49:56 AM »

Well it's February 2. I have not got my rifle back yet. I called Remington about 2 weeks ago and they said they were waiting on a run of 7MM-08 barrels to be produced for the M7. I called them again yesterday evening and they said my gun is in final inspection and if everything is OK it should ship out Monday or Tuesday. I asked the guy if he had any information as to what they found wrong with it. He said his information on the computer said complete barrel assembly had to be replaced. I'll update when I get it back about whether it is fixed now or not. I sure hope it is.

Foggy · « **Reply #23 on:** February 02, 2008, 11:14:42 AM »

Just a thought, what dose a barrel assembly have to do with an improperly milled receiver? A receiver is a receiver a barrel a barrel. I was toying with getting a model 7 in 7-08 think I'll rethink my model choice.

Foggy

Graybeard · « **Reply #24 on:** February 02, 2008, 11:45:24 AM »

I really don't think there is any reason to rethink your choice Foggy. I've owned and still own several of them and have owned a lot more over the years. The Model 7 is one of the least troublesome guns I've ever owned.

I still say that there was no problem with the original gun here just a misunderstanding of how the bases fit on the receiver of it. The M7 rear base has to be thicker than the front due to the way the receiver is made. If you buy the proper bases it works just fine. If you don't it doesn't.

I have both new and old and they do take different bases but when the proper bases are installed all is fine with both.

jvs · « **Reply #25 on:** February 02, 2008, 10:56:08 PM »

Quote from: Foggy on February 02, 2008, 11:14:42 AM

Just a thought, what dose a barrel assembly have to do with an improperly milled receiver? A receiver is a receiver a barrel a barrel. Foggy

Yes, what good does it do to get the same receiver back with a different barrel? Something doesn't make sense here. You send the rifle to Remington because the Receiver is milled wrong and they replace the Barrel?

Mckie Hollow · « **Reply #26 on:** February 03, 2008, 02:36:46 AM »

I put a Conetrol on My Older Model 7, and a Talley on My New CDL. Wasn't a Problem with either. Must of gotten The Right Serial #'s.

bukfevr · « **Reply #27 on:** February 07, 2008, 03:24:59 PM »

Well, this was not the repairman at Remington telling me that they replaced the barrel assembly. This was an operator sitting at a computer answering the phones. I still do not have the gun back to see what they actually did to it. You guys are right, it won't do one bit of good to send that gun back to me with the same receiver. The receiver is the problem, not the barrel. If it comes back with the same receiver on it, it will have to leave this house for sure.

And Graybeard, you still are acting like I'm some kind of a greenhorn idiot about this. I have bought 3 sets of bases for this gun and NOT ONE of them will work. It is not the bases, it's the gun. I have owned and worked on plenty of guns over the years to know whether I have the right bases or not. I am tired of hearing you say that I have no idea what I'm doing and you know everything about the gun I own. Just because your M7 is just fine has nothing to do with mine. I really hope Remington got it fixed, but I will not know until I get it back. I just wish you could see this gun for yourself and maybe it would stop some of this "oh, he don't know what he's talking about, he don't understand" stuff.

Graybeard · « **Reply #28 on:** February 07, 2008, 06:54:56 PM »

Assuming you have a digital camera you could have shown it to us but chose not to.

bukfevr · « **Reply #29 on:** February 08, 2008, 04:29:52 PM »

Well, the gun is back from Remington. Picked it up today. Yellow sheet of paper from Remington Arms Co. in the box says, "Problem Reported-receiver milled wrong." The next sentence says, "Problem found-receiver milled wrong." The complete barrel assembly has been replaced. This includes the receiver, bolt and barrel. Remington said they consider the barrel assembly to include the receiver and barrel. Scope mounts work perfectly now. So problem is solved finally. And I guess I must have got lucky and there WAS actually something wrong with the receiver, Graybeard. Sure was happy to get it back and know that it is finally fixed. Took 2 months and 4 days.