Model 7 Nightmare

[Swampman]

Once a year is more than enough.  Then it will take 10 fouling shots to get it to shoot properly again.

[SHOOTALL]

Once a year is more than enough.  Then it will take 10 fouling shots to get it to shoot properly again.

I would think the number of shots and the jacket material of the bullet would dictate the frequency of cleaning and my experince has been 2-3 shots is all that is needed along with weather conditions the gun was exposed to ( a damp bore coated with copper is an almost sure bet for problems . That has been my experince

[Brithunter]

American made ammo is non-corrosive.  Remington and everyone else knows how accurate their guns are.  The weak link is the shooter.

Now I have to be careful here    but swampman who mentioned corrosive ammunition?


The dampness in the air can and does get under the jacket fouling where it quietly works away eating into you nice bright bore so it's no longer nice bright and smooth but dull and pitted.


As Remington knowing how precise their guns shoot well if they do they are sure keeping it close to their chest. I asked the question because except for a few those I have come across have not been that good.

[Swampman]

I've never seen coper fouling in my rifles but I also shoot a lot of lead that I cast myself.  Once a year with Hoppe's #9 is all mine get and a light cleaning at that.

[Brithunter]

Hoping someone here has an answer.   I have a stainless Model 7 in 7-08. Bought it new several year ago. Out of the box it shot about 2" group. It has a 20" barrel and is pretty skinney. I let the barrel cool 5 minutes between shots. It had the plastic stock that Rem. puts on them and I replaced it with a HS Precision stock. All screws are torqued to specs. and I have tried scopes that are provened good from other guns. Have tried factory loads and every load and bullet weight that I could find. Any advice? New barrel?

Ahhh 3 feathers it seems it will do no good talking to Remington after all as after pushing them it seem they manufacture to "industry Standards" which in a rifles grouping ability is 2" for both the 700 and Model 7:-

Industry standard is 2 inches or less for hunting rifles. Proper ammunition and optics should make this very easy.

[/size][/color]
[/size] [/color][/size]  Just doing some checking and Weatherby still have an Sub MOA 3 shot group guarantee on their Series 2 Synthetic Vanguard at least. As I believe I mentioned before I could not find this information on either Sako's or Tikka's web site so will try and see if they will answer the question.[/color]

[mannyrock]

Hey Brit,
 
   It is annoying when all of the ad booklets make claims of "superb accuracy" etc.  But I guess we all know the difference between mere puffery and a guarantee.  Many car ads make the claim that their automobile is the "finest automobile in the world."   Nobody believes it.  So in the end, I find it difficult to care.
 
   My friend had a Model 7 in .243, with the 20 inch barrel.   The first two shots were generally within 3/4 of an inch, but the third shot always opened the group up to about 2 inches.  The rifle is what it is.  A nice carbine with a short light barrel that heats of fast.  If I ever got one, I would put a standard 22 inch sporter weight barrel on it, and cut it down to 21 inches. This would solve most of the issues.
 
Mannyrock

[Brithunter]

Out of interest what is the diameter at the muzzle on the barrel?


I know they say slim but I don't think I have ever seen a Model 7 in the flesh so to speak so it's difficult to compare them.


Although I did measure the O/D of my 270 BSA I cannot now recall what it was exactly and cannot access it to remeasure but here is a photo on the muzzles:-





Both are chambered for the 270 Winchester cartridge. The one on the left is the Majestic Featherweight and it's about 0.050" smaller than the barrel of the 1st pattern Monarch on the right from memory.


I believe that a lot of manufacturers they had one barrel profile so a .308 say would have a thinner barrel wall than the .270.


Now is this the case with Remington?


Or do they use different barrel profiles?


I understand the Model 7 is a lighter version than the std 700. The Majestic Featherweight weighs 6 1/4 lbs as standard and with leather sling and 3-9x42 Lisenfeld scope and 4 rounds in the magazine it weighs 7 lbs 12 oz. Oh yes it should have the shaped fore sight hood same as the Monarch but it was missing so I put on a later round one.


E-mailed Sako/Tikka this morning asking them the same question on grouping acceptance standards.

[Spanky]

I think the quality of the bore has alot to do with how often a rifle needs to be cleaned. A perfectly smooth bore with sharp rifling shouldn't build up copper, lead, etc, as fast and would probably need to be cleaned less often. Of course this is just a guess on my part and I've been wrong before.
What say you fella's??
 
 
 
Spanky

[Scibaer]

i'm hesitation to say this, but ..
 i never clean my barrels of my guns, unless the  accuracy falls off, then i clean em good.
then they usually take about half dozen shots to restore the previous accuracy level..
  i agree, a smooth bore should stay clean longer. there is not any place for the copper or lead to snag on and build up or fill into.
 but, looking at the bores of my guns, i cant really tell the difference. all i know is they shoot right until they dont, they i clean them ..
 i dont do the barrel break in thing either..

[Scibaer]

 i used to break in my barrels and clean them religiously.. then over the years, i found that my rifles were just as accurate and alot times better if'n i didnt clean them. and i dropped the break in too, and found i had good results there too.

i think , that if the bullet pushing down the barrel is imparting copper or lead into the mirco small pits and groves in the steel of the barrel, is a cotton swab or brass brush going to clean it out ? i dunno.

[fastchicken]

   And back to the actual topic, my Mod 7 243 was only ever about a 1 1/4"-1 1/2" gun, with some 2"+ groups thrown in here and there. I wouldn't call it a "nightmare" unless it was shooting 4+"


Really? Some people have no sense of humor, but I'm glad there is someone watching out for them to remove anything that might offend.

[Scibaer]

i agree, a rifle thats shooting 2" and smaller groups is hardly a nightmare.  infact my new 700 with a heavy barrel is shooting just under 2" cold bore , no break in with 150 grain green box remingtons and i'm purty happy with that. it try some other brand and weights , but for hunting that works for me just fine..

[Brithunter]

Well now I have one particular .270 Rifle of 1984 vintage that does copper foul quite quickly, the bore is real smooth too, the reason I discovered why it fouls is that the bore is tighter than others I have. This tightness causes extra friction and thus copper deposits. Some makes of bullets foul more than others too.


Another side effect of the tighter bore is increased pressures. In fact one book load that is fine in my three other 270 Winchester rifles gives vastly increased pressure in this barrel enough to expand a primer pocket enough on the first reload of a Norma case for the primer to fall out.


It just goes to show that each and every barrel is a law unto itself in what it likes or dislikes.


If you shine a bright light, or angle the muzzle so the bright daylight lights the side of the bore, if there is copper fouling present or building up you can see it something that is not possible usually by looking straight through the bore. Using a bore scope is quite frightening as it shows even the grain structure of the surface of the steel with it's magnifying power. Looking at a bore that has a fair number of rounds through it the effect of the heat and pressure on the throat/leade is quite remarkable ......................................................... well I thought it was anyway. A good bore scope is darned expensive though ............................. far to expensive for my pocket.


Oh yes Sako/Tikka replied to my e-mail query in just over a day which I thought was pretty good especially as it would need translating asw ell they not speaking/reading English as a first language!


It only took one e-mail too:-

Thank you for your email and for your interest towards SAKO products. Each and every rifle that leaves Sako factory is test shot for accuracy and the minimum requirement is 1MOA, using our own, high quality ammunition. At the moment we do not supply the rifles with test targets.  [/size][size=78%] [/size]

 I found it refreshing not to have to push hard for an answer as well. I wonder what Savage would say if they were asked the same question?


As to cleaning well as my routine has worked for me all these years I will stick with it.
[/font][/color]
[/font][/color]
[/size][/color]

[Scibaer]

Brithunter,
 maybe that should be the first step in this whole discussion. getting a clean and true look at the bore of rifle in question.
 you said...
"If you shine a bright light, or angle the muzzle so the bright daylight lights the side of the bore, if there is copper fouling present or building up you can see it something that is not possible usually by looking straight through the bore. Using a bore scope is quite frightening as it shows even the grain structure of the surface of the steel with it's magnifying power."

lets talk good quality bore lights, where to get them and understanding what we see.

[fastchicken]

All my centerfires leave copper fouling, I've never seen a rifle that can send a bullet down the barrel at 2000mph and not leave a little something behind. Swamps must have the magic bean of rifle barrels to not ever have any copper fouling, but than again, I can drive my truck without burning any gas

[Scibaer]

i think i read a contradiction here..
 if it takes 10 fouling shots to get the barrel to shoot right again.. then it must be leaving residue, either copper or lead behind.
 to make it shoot right again.. what else would a bullet leave behind to foul the barrel ?

 but if you  do not see any copper left behind, then why are the fouling shots needed ?


so, swampy its either one or the other..  residue in the form of copper, lead or both or a clean non fouled barrel

 2000 miles per hour is about 2930 feet per second
a 26 inch barrel is 2 . 16 feet
the bullet travels the barrel in 1.4 th of a second.. rounding out or 1356.4 of 1 second..
not taking into account any cross sectional crush and friction.

its not possible for copper or lead to contact steel via rifling and not leave something of itself behind.

[pastorp]

Scibaer, I agree with your opinion...     Barrels get dirty when amo is fired in them. A hand laped barrel perhaps a little less quickly but they all get dirty.   
Where I live we deal with sea air and a generally damp humity. I usually swap out the bore of my rifles more for that reason than anything else. Never felt it took more than a shot or two to foul the bore. I only deep clean when accurcity falls off, as others have noted.

Regards,

[84Jim]

I think the quality of the bore has alot to do with how often a rifle needs to be cleaned. A perfectly smooth bore with sharp rifling shouldn't build up copper, lead, etc, as fast and would probably need to be cleaned less often.  Spanky

I agree 100% with that statement to the point that a better quality barrel will have fewer (or better yet, no) tool marks and build up less copper fouling. Mass produced factory guns (even Remingtons) don't get the TLC, like lapping or stricter quality control, than a custom barrel, like a Kreiger and others.  I like Bore Tech cleaning solvent and the degree of copper fouling really shows by the color of the patches.  IMO there is not a rifle ever made that doesn't leave Copper fouling if its shoots high velocity jacketed bullets.
The big question, is when does it matter?  I'm not a zealot for cleaning guns and don't clean until I have 150 to 200 rounds thru the bore.  I never noticed a fall off in accuracy in that period.  I know other guys who clean their guns every time they are shot and swear they can see accuracy improvements.  Actually, my sweetest shooting milsurp gun is my 6.5x55 M96 swedish rifle and judging by the color of the first patches run thru the bore it copper fouls worse than any other of my guns.
Finally, kudos to all of you that said that a hunting rifle with a sporter weight barrel that shoots 1 1/2 or even 2 inches shouldn't be considered a dissapointment.  To me, a nice evenly distributed 5 shot group of 1 1/2 inches will kill any big game within any range you should be shooting at.  I think we are stuck on the magic minute of angle that proves nothing and is not always obtainable with an out of the box hunting gun (except on the internet ).
Jim

[Scibaer]

the OP had a question.. his NIB shoot 2" groups and he wants advice , and asks if a new barrel is in order..
i say shoot it, hunt with it and enjoy it, and take pride in the 2" groups and dont look for problems where there aint any.

and yes, there is alot of sub MOA, .5 inch groups at 100 yards shooters on the internet, in real life, 2 inch groups are darn good and lots of minute of deer, 3" groups are more realistic.

[Spanky]

And yes, there is alot of sub MOA, .5 inch groups at 100 yards shooters on the internet, in real life, 2 inch groups are darn good and lots of minute of deer, 3" groups are more realistic.

 
Yup.
 
 
 
Spanky

[Scibaer]

.
 a rifle that puts a hole in a animal 2 inches at 100 "hunting" yards from where you aim is the issue, as i read the OP post.
 and i made statements that support that point.
 here's how i see it.. bullet impact animal, ballistics being what they are, make a cavitation ( wound ) channel. the channel expands, but from all the ones ive ever seen, are atleast 1 inch diameter at the entrance.
meaning, a .30 bullet will make a wound 1 inch dia. give or take.
 that also means that if the bullet impacts 2 inch away from POI, the part that matters is infact only 1 inch away..
at 100 yards, in hunting situations.. i cant see how thats ever going to be  a problem ..

[Scibaer]

thats true, just about every shooter has some on target wobble.
and its true that a misplaced shot can/will wound the animal.
but, thats what marksmanship training is all about, controlling breathing, understanding wobble, sight picture , i dont need to list more, we all know what they are.  but a 2" inch group on animal is a 2" inch group, and i stand by my prior assessment of it being only off by 1 inch and its more then satifactory . i have shot whitetails, missed the heart by 4 inches so, but still dropped them where they stood with my 30-30
and swampy, i just dont see how you will sell off a rifle that can shoot that well.

[84Jim]

If you have 2-3 inches of wobble (most have alot more) with a 2 MOA rifle you have a good chance of missing or wounding an animal.

I dunno.  Lets say you have a 2MOA gun and 3 inch wobble.  For an 8 inch vital area, your maximum range for a 100% certainty of a hit would be 100 yds. (bullet 1" max from point of aim + 3" wobble = 4inches).  For a 1MOA gun that range would only extend to 112 yards (somebody please check my math).  Hardly a big difference seeing as 95% of the whitetails that have ever been shot were killed at less than 100 yards.  Just ask the billion or so deer killed with open sighted Model 94's.

Next time I dump a 2 MOA rifle I'll give you guys a call.  I do it several times a year.

Swampy, If you've said it once, you've said it probably a dozen times in the last month that the only rifle you would ever consider buying is a Remington Model 700.  Please tell me that at least some of those guns that you are dumping aren't 700's
 

[Scibaer]

well i dont have an argument with your statement Jim
 but a 3 inch wobble doesnt mean that you will be shooting at the outside edge of the wobble.
thats a part of knowing your self as a marksman, leading that wobble so to speak.
and  a 3 inch wobble, side to side means thats more like 1.5 from POI to the wobble outside edge.
so your 4 inch POI number, could.. could be as small as 1.5 inches plus 1" for the POI for a total of 2.5.
 now aint all that silly.. we are talking bout 1 inch here or 2 inches there.. who would not be happy with a 2.5 inch shooter ?
 now throw in selling off a 700 or some other 2 inch shoot ? .. i dont buy that
yeah just about all the deer ive ever shot was well inside 100 yards. 
not a sub MOA , get a new barrel , sell that gun cuz it dont shoot internet cow droppings ..

[Brithunter]

Thank you all for confirming my suspicions  . It's no wonder the stalkers (deer hunters) in the UK buy other makes as not only are our native deer smaller in the most part than the American Whitetail and Mule Deer butt he meat is more often than not sold to the game dealer for processing and sale onto to the meat and resturant trade. I stalk fro my own benefit and do not sell to the game dealer.


  The favoured shot of these meat harvesters is the neck shot and a rifle that does not shoot at least MOA is no use to them at all. A Roe deer's neck in total width is only about 3" wide, Muntjac deer are smaller. Even in Fallow deer the target area for the neck shot is only about an inch. For those who might not realise the Roe Deer which is an ancient species and native to these islands has a heart that is under 3" in diameter the Muntjac which is an almost prehistoric species brought in from Asia during the late 1800's and since colonised has a heart more like 2". The Muntjac stand about 2 feet tall and weighs about 30lbs for a good Buck but man are they fine eating    here is a full grown Doe taken by myself some years back:-





perhaps you cans see why better precision in grouping is desirable. far to easy to destroy the loins or saddle and lose some of the best cuts.



One can see the entrance wound on this Doe in the front of the chest. She was not in an ideal spot and at about 160-180 yards shot taken from a high seat (elevated box blind) so there was a solid rest.





Roe Doe for comparison with same Rifle. Using an 8" kill zone of Roe could result in too many gut shots. Some say 6" others 5" for Roe.


  Personally I do not like the upper neck shot same as I don't like head shots. The lower neck is better IMHO but I'll much rather take high heart/low lung any time I can get it  .


Now back to the OP's query/question. No I would not be happy with any new rifle when fitted with a good scope and mount set up that could not produce better than 2" groups. The OP does not mention how many shots make up that group so we will have to work on the favoured modern Three round group. frankly I expect that from an iron sighted rifle not a scoped one. My maximum group size that I would be happy with is 1 1/2" for Five shots at 100 yards. if the rifle does not achieve this I work with it until I can but until then it does not go hunting. So far I have managed to achieve this with every rifle brought for hunting use.


Some old Milsurps have not managed this but then again they were not intended for hunting and were often shooting ammunition far older than I am.


Sadly the OP has little option if he wants to keep the rifle than try some thing like fire lapping and hope it shows some improvement failing that live with it and forever wonder if it could do better or re-barrel. A friedn in Missouri had very good results from fire lapping a poorly performing barrel.

[84Jim]

Scibaer,
I agree, mylogic might have been flawed, but bottom line, the difference between a 1MOA and 2MOA gun is 1/2 inch, at the worst. My vision of a Model 7 isn't a beanfield gun, but a nice lightweight, handy rifle for still hunting in the woods.  Under those conditions you can kill deer all day long with that gun.  I underlined hunting because if you're a deer sniper your probably not carrying a Model 7 anyway
Brit,
I was basing my logic on American deer, where the kill zone is bigger than those on your side of the pond. I agree that varmit rifle type accuracy is probably necessary if the shots get longer.  Actually, a .223 or similar gun would be just about perfect for those deer.
Just so we're havin' fun...
Jim 

[Scibaer]

Jim,
 no your logic was not flawed, you were right on. i was just pointing out that the wobble swampy talked about was not, or could be quite small and not as a gap in good POI as suggested.
 your right of course, the 7 is just fine for hunting hogs or whitetail sized animals. and a 2 or 3 inch group is more then fine.
now in Brits situation, the need for 3/4 inch groups is a real need, as is would be for a varmint hunter.
i think the OP needs to address what kind of hunting he going to be after , before saying a 2 inch group warrents a rebarrel or a sell off.
and as for selling off a 2 inch rifle , unless your match shooting , p-dogging or shooting deer weighting 2 1/2 stone , that just reads like internet bull.
now , saying that, i just got a remmy 700 with help and advice from a few gbo memebers, we went on our first date over the weekend and it showed me a 2 inch , 5 round grouping at about 1 1/2 in high at 100 yards indoors with cheapy remington green box ammo.
and i will get some other stuff and see what we are capable of.. and i will reload for it, but im very happy with that, and it will work just fine for the hunting i do.

[Brithunter]

Actually they have only recently allowed the use of .22 Centre fire rifles for both Muntjac and Chinese Water Deer (CWD) but not Roe Deer  . In Scotland the law specifically allows their use on Roe Deer with a 50 grain bullet but for Muntjac or CWD you need a minimum of .240 calibre and 100 grain bullet    and you thought you had some strange laws  .


Muntjac are tougher than they appear the neck skin is very thick due to the fights that Bucks have over females and territory. They have canine tusks, think sabre toothed deer  , you should hear folks complain at how tough getting that neck skin off the carcase is. I agree they are not easy but they do taste soooooooooooooooooooo good it's worth the fight.


I believe it's this difference in quarry and ways of hunting that causes the misunderstanding at times in the choices of rifles and scopes.

[RevJim]

 Brithunter- you brought up a very good point in having an accurste rifle; small targets! For that kind of deer hunting/varmint hunting, any rifle over 1" would be a liability. I have shot many game animals with head/neck shots, and a .5 to .75 MOA rifle is the pefect setup. My Model 94 Winchester classic carbine, with Remington 150 corlokt factory ammo was a gee whiz rifle for shooting the heads off squirrels/rabbits "at 30yds and under", ha. I stated earlier, it wouldn't hold 6" at 100yds, but in the thickets/heavy forests of SE Texas, I was not handicapped. My very first long range ( just under 300 meters) whitetail buck was shot with a handloaded .280 that would keep 3-5 shots under 1" and under, so I was very confident of the shot, and I use/like the high lung/top of heart shot. But for neck/head shots, I call that "putting the finesse" on them, ha. So, I could shoot that little muntjac at 30yds with my old 30-30 or 100yds with any rifle I could hold around 1"...past that, I don't "finesse them", ha. By the way, the meat market cull hunters in Texas use 22-250s and head/neck shots only. I used to hunt with some South Afrikan boer biltong hunters who did the same, and they made some super long range headshots on springbok and Gemsbok. They too had to have very accurate rifles. Yet, I've seen many "regular deer hunters" in my life that would put a shot or two in a paper plate at 60yds, maybe 100 and say "that's good enough, then buy a totally different brand of ammo/bullet weight and shoot deer. But they are happy, and unless any of them ever ask me to help them set up a rifle for accuracy, I just smile and say "nice rifle", ha. My philosophy was always "better to have and not need than need and not have,"    The hard part of being in America is our very limited game bags/seasons. As a whole, we are fortunate to have 5 to 9 days out West, the East has similar, with the south having the most generous. So, we tend to tinker alot more with rifles/loads/scopes than those in other countries. That's why, as a whole, Americans who love to shoot are often excellent benchrest shooters, but not so great as a game shot. Shooting varmints ( prairie dogs, small game) is the best teacher in my opinion. Do you roast those little deer whole or how do you guys like to cook them?

[Brithunter]

The Back strap (saddle) makes a fine roast as a whole or just boned out rolls. The problem with it is there is no or very little fat in Muntjac and not that much in Roe so you have to cook carefully or it dries out and then basically is ruined. Sure it's ediable but no where near as good as it should be.


Roasting wrapped in foil is excellent but be ready for the amount of juices it produces. Without the foil they just burn off hence the meat drying out. I cooked my first ever Roe Doe Back strap that way and was shocked to find the joint roll of meat I put in shrank in length by a good 3" but it had expanded in thickness from under 2" to about 3 1/2". It had the texture of a fine meat loaf and carved beautifully. Until then I had never eaten Venison. It was Febuary and I had had a successful stalk at last and purchased the carcase from the stalker who lease I was on and with. We weighed the gutted carcase with head and feet on and she was a good size doe for a Roe and weighed just under 35llbs.


I had to figure out the skinning and jointing myself. Not easy in my tiny kitchen of the one bedroomed apartment that was home. I used the bath to contain the blood as I did the deed. My back ached for days afterwards.


Both Roe and Muntjac is also good cut into pieces or strips and quick fried and eaten as is or then used in a pasta or with just gravy and light seasoning. The neck if not blown up by a neck shot make a wonderful casserole or stew. The ribs are not really worth bothering with as they have little on them and are small. The haunches do provide some excellent steaks surprisingly. A Roe haunch will weigh about 5-7lbs Muntjac maybe 4lbs.


I think venison is a poor description as unlike Lamb, Pork or Beef the flesh from a Muntjac is totally different from that of Fallow being of much finer grain texture and Fallow is vastly different to Red Deer. I beleive Whitetail is a bit like Fallow. Not quite the same but closer than either Red Deer or Roe/Muntjac. And yes I have eaten Whitetail from the 9 Point Buck and some Doe meat from those I shot in Missouri back in 2003.


Now Gourmet chefs no doubt have better ways to prepare and cook venison or so I am told however I had a Red Deer steak in Scotland whilst there one holiday some years back and I hink it was about ready to crawl off the plate........................................... it stank!  I do not hang mine for more than aday or two and then only if too tied up with other things to skin and joint sooner. To my mind it makes better meat. hanging a day or two does help relax the meat and it is often a bit more tender but both Roe and Muntjac unless dealing with a very old beast is not a tough meat.


Hope that answers your question.