Rem 700

[Preacher shaner]

I just put a rem 700 in 30-06 in layway. I am reading so stuff about how thay are no good. I am looking at a Leopold for it going to try 180 e-tip. I would like to reach 4 to 500 yards hunting range. Do yall think this will be a problem.

 

[Big Slick]

I like 165 grain in my 30-06. I’ve killed antelope to 400 yards.

 

[Dougfirtree]

I think most people agree that they are not what they once were, in quality, but they're still perfectly good rifles. Hard to go wrong with a Leupold scope as well. If you want to use an all-copper bullet, you might be better off going with a 168 grain. Enjoy!

 

[VikingsGuy]

Rem's are by far one of the most common bolt action rifles and tons of aftermarket stocks etc allow you to tweak it over time, so that's a plus. While there are other brands I would pick first (think Tikka, Bergara, howa etc), Rems will definitely kill things. Similarly, 30-06 is the classic do-all cartridge, if you are in the lower 48, other than bison you should be well gunned. But from 400-500 yards there are much better cartridges (270win, 300wsm, 270wsm, 300winmag, 284win, etc) - less drop, less wind deflection, better terminal ballistics. A Remington 30-06 will get most jobs done so no need to regret your choice, but in its stock form it is the full-sized chevy 4 door sedan of guns.

As for glass - Leupold vx-3i is nice, vx-5hd is super nice. I would spend about 1.5x what you spent on your rifle as a starting point - I have learned that if on a budget, better to shoot a $350 gun with $650 glass than to shoot a $750 gun with $250 glass (of course a $1000 gun with $1500 glass is fun too). There is a HT member, schmalts, who has great pricing on leupold stuff - I have yet to see cheaper prices than his online.

As for bullet weight, if you want to shoot out to 500y you should pay attention to the BCs - they will make a difference. Of course, you always start with bullet construction for your chosen game, but as you go beyond 300y things like maintained velocity and wind deflection become much more important.

So in summary, "rems are no good" is an overstatement, lots of them shooting stuff in the field every season, 30-06 is a do-all choice with some limitations, leupold is a great place to start for scopes, and understand terminal ballistics beyond 300 yards before you choose your bullet.

 

[Don Fischer]

Rem's are by far one of the most common bolt action rifles and tons of aftermarket stocks etc allow you to tweak it over time, so that's a plus. While there are other brands I would pick first (think Tikka, Bergara, howa etc), Rems will definitely kill things. Similarly, 30-06 is the classic do-all cartridge, if you are in the lower 48, other than bison you should be well gunned. But from 400-500 yards there are much better cartridges (270win, 300wsm, 270wsm, 300winmag, 284win, etc) - less drop, less wind deflection, better terminal ballistics. A remington 30-06 will get most jobs done so no need to regret your choice, but in its stock form it is the full-sized chevy 4 sedan of guns.

As for glass - Leupold vx-3i is nice, vx-5hd is super nice. I would spend about 1.5x what you spent on your rifle as a starting point - I have learned that if on a budget, better to shoot a $350 gun with $650 glass than to shoot a $750 gun with $250 glass (of course a $1000 gun with $1500 glass is fun too). There is a HT member, schmalts, who has great pricing on leupold stuff - I have yet to see cheaper prices than his online.

Let's see, if I put a $250scope on an $800 rifle, the scope is not good enough. But if I put the same scope on a $300 rifle it works fine?

So if my $800 rifle shoot's 1" groups at 100 yds with the $250 scope, it will do better with the $1500 scope? Where does this thinking come from? Doesn't seem to me that a 243 shooting well with a $300 scope will improve for no other reason than you changed to a more expensive scope! Certainly are a lot of people that seem to believe this!

 

[El Jason]

As for bullet weight, if you want to shoot out to 500y you should pay attention to the BCs - they will make a difference.

During a long discussion with a gentlemen who has likely forgotten more about bullets than I'll know, he voiced the opinion that BC really doesn't matter until you get well north of 500 yards. More likely 7-800. He said most hunters can't shoot far enough they should ever care about BC.

 

[BucksnDucks]

Viking guy is right on. Rem 700 ran the show for a long time, not so much now. They are not the worst bolt gun just lots of competitors doing more. I have an old 700 in 30-06, but no longer my go to and surely not my choice for 500 yards.
Leopold makes solid optics.
My advice, if you get the 700 lower your yardage expectations. If for some reason you "need" longer range shots understand what it takes and the responsibility of pulling the trigger on long distance critters.

 

[noharleyyet]

Action screw torque, fore-end pressure point/barrel heat mitigation, bolt lugs exerting unequal force. stock flex....the scope is a co witness to the aforementioned. Good scopes do exactly what's entered. All things equal, operator proclivity for consistent projectile launch.

...factory ammo QC or hand loading proficiency.....it's always something but satisfying when it works.

 

[OhHeyThereBen]

Action screw torque, fore-end pressure point/barrel heat mitigation, bolt lugs exerting unequal force. stock flex....the scope is a co witness to the aforementioned. Good scopes do exactly what's entered. All things equal, operator proclivity for consistent projectile launch.

...factory ammo QC or hand loading proficiency.....it's always something but satisfying when it works.

This is the struggle, yet most fun part if you really want to get into it!

I think that I agree with Don above. A quality scope is quite nice, but I'm of the opinion that you're better off getting a reliable lower-end scope (Leupold Rifleman or whatever it's called now) and spending more money on binoculars or a spotter. While nice rifle scope glass and functionality is a plus, it's not really that necessary on a hunting scope. If you're picky and afford it though, go right ahead and get the VX-5HD!

 

[VikingsGuy]

Let's see, if I put a $250scope on an $800 rifle, the scope is not good enough. But if I put the same scope on a $300 rifle it works fine?

So if my $800 rifle shoot's 1" groups at 100 yds with the $250 scope, it will do better with the $1500 scope? Where does this thinking come from? Doesn't seem to me that a 243 shooting well with a $300 scope will improve for no other reason than you changed to a more expensive scope! Certainly are a lot of people that seem to believe this!

I never said a scope made a rifle more inherently accurate, but regardless, for my money I would put more emphasis on glass than gun. 1 MOA rifles are pretty routine these days even at budget price points, so I think you get an accurate rifle fairly cheaply with or without nice glass. Nice glass is easier on the eyes, longer shooting light, more reliable zero hold, more reliable dialing of elevation/windage, etc. - especially for those of us with aging eyes.

 

[BuzzH]

As to the 700...lots of things you can do to make them what you want. I have 3 of them in the house and they're all my best shooting rifles, by far.

As to the 30/06...heard it said, and its true, the worst round based on the 30/06 case, is the 30/06. But, I've shot a lot of animals with one and they work just fine...and likely better now that there is a such a wide variety of bullets available.

The scope discussion...yeah, whatever. I don't see the need, for probably 95% of normal hunting, to spend 1.5x the money on a rifle scope as you do the rifle. That's flawed logic, as a best case. As long as the scope is reliable and holds zero...no reason for that kind of investment at all. That's not to say that if you can afford it, to not spend what you want. I shot a metric chit ton of animals with a sporterized, hand-me-down springfield 30/06 and a $30 bushnell 3-9x40. Held zero just fine.

Lots of folks these days getting wrapped up in rifles, loads, scopes, backpacks, boots, clothing...none of it compensates to higher success rates, if you're a lousy hunter.

I want solid equipment, but would rather invest my $$$ in scouting trips, tags, powder, bullets, range memberships...things that actually do make a difference between being successful or not.

My 2 cents.

 

[El Jason]

I want solid equipment, but would rather invest my $$$ in scouting trips, tags, powder, bullets, range memberships...things that actually do make a difference between being successful or not.

It's this exact reason why I convinced myself I didn't need a new scope this winter. I'll buy elk tags instead. Hard to be successful as an elk hunter without those.

 

[cahunter805]

The M700 is a great choice still today. A few simple tricks would be to check free float, action screw lengths/torque and scope base screw length especially on the front screw hole.

 

[N2TRKYS]

I bought my Dad a M700 CDL 30-06 a couple of years ago for a retirement present. That thing shoots tiny groups with 165 grain Accubonds. It has a Leupold VX3i 3.5-10x50 sitting in Talley lightweight rings.
I've bought several new Remingtons since and have never had an issue with any of them. Personally, I wouldn't shoot that heavy if I were going with an all metal type bullet.

 

[oleefish2]

I have two old 700s and 2 under ten years old. I see no real difference in how they preform and will take them out with confidence every day. I do not have a good old 06 but if I did, I would never be scared to use it. It was my dads and several of his friends go to killer.

 

[MJE2083]

There is absolutely nothing "wrong" with a 700, recalls aside. In fact they're probably the most popular bolt action rifle in the United States. For whatever reason they're not the "flavor of the month" anymore. I've shot several, both new and old, never a problem with any of them. My wife has a newer SPS model that shoots cloverleaf groups with handloads all day long.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Lots of folks these days getting wrapped up in rifles, loads, scopes, backpacks, boots, clothing...none of it compensates to higher success rates, if you're a lousy hunter.

I want solid equipment, but would rather invest my $$$ in scouting trips, tags, powder, bullets, range memberships...things that actually do make a difference between being successful or not.

My 2 cents.

If people read this they would save a lot more than two cents and kill a lot more animals. That old saying about it being the Indian not the arrow is as true today as it ever was.

 

[1100RemingtonMan]

Quick answer Yes ,500 yards easy. Remington still makes great rifles and all price ranges. I don't think you could find a 700 Sendero that would not shoot MOA or BDL, CDL.
My Best Friend shoots a 700 SPS 300 Win. Mag that shoot great.
Enjoy your new Rifle.

 

[JEL]

I have 3 700's in my safe. .270 BDL, 30-06 ADL and .243 BDL. They all shoot great. The .270 was my go to gun for everything for years. I had great confidence in that gun. My youngest boy started shooting it when he was about 16 and he has kind of inherited yet. It has performed well for him as well. They all have middle range scopes.

 

[beginnerhunter]

A lot of the 700 hate came from the trigger issue which was probably overblown. Not saying there weren't a few bad eggs but it wasn't like every 700 was going to misfire. This was the older models, the newer ones are fine.

My 700 in .270 is extremely accurate off the bench. But the trigger has a lot of creep and is too heavy for me. So I'm actually looking forward to getting mine replaced as part of the settlement. Got my paperwork a week or so ago!