Forums.NitroExpress.com

Received my new Remington Baikal sxs double rifle, and it was far better than I thought it would be, overall, in my opinion, and I have numerous double rifles from which to compare, including some classic old British ones and several old European ones as well, in various calibers. this new Remington/Baikal uses the traditional Purdey double underbolt; no top or third fastener at all, in .30-06 caliber. That "limited" fastening works well, as does the single wide underbolt on the Chapuis and a few other "modern" doubles with similar bolting, in same caliber, a rather intense cartridge for a double, due to the fact that the Baikal/Remington uses a very high quality "modern" steel (I checked this steel very carefully on Baikals, and am convinced that their steel is quite good), as is the steel used in Chapuis and other "modern" rifles with only a single locking bolt. Another example of this high quality steel, is found in the Winchester model 21 (that has been made into a few rifle calibers as well, especially in .45-70 caliber), that uses 4140 steel, and I believe these other "modern" doubles, including the Baikal, with only one locking bolt uses steel comparable to 4140. With earlier doubles, such a single bolt bolting system would not have served well, due to the earlier steel not being anything equal to what is now used in "modern" rifles of which I speak. The Baikal action size is, I think. (haven't measured it yet, though) 20 gauge size, so it has nice slim, trim, lightweight barrels that look and function well. Being a non rimmed cartridge double, the Baikal uses plunger type extractors that function well---I have another very high quality super over under double rifle, made in Austria pre WWII in .270 caliber, with same type plunger extractors and they have functioned very well for me throught years of use, so I believe that the plunder type, if fitted well, will work and function well, for a good long time, and I know that doubles are much better if only for rimmed cartridges. How about that over under of mine in such an intense cartridge, .270 made prior to WWII, that still is tight as hell and works soooo well, and, is accurate along with it? I know, hard to believe, if one doesn't see it on their own. The Baikal sights leave a lot to be desired, but I plan to mill out longer slots in rib, to install British type leaf express sights, so that problem isn't all that bad. It has rib that one can install scope to, if desired, (I don't like scopes on doubles, though). I planned to regulate this Baikal, and solder in my own custom-made ribs (I convert double shotguns to double rifles, using Ellis Brown system---took class in process from Brown, and have his book that he later published, but after seeing this Baikal, with metal ribs, decided against that whole process-someone said they used plastic ribs, but mine has metal ribs that look fairy nice without any modifications. I plan to "touch up" the stock contour, finish, etc., but "as is," it is pretty nice, for sure. Obviously, Baikal doesn't do a lot of careful precision hand work, but one can work around that little problem. For the money, in my opinion, they are well worth the price. I may get another, in .45-70, so that is how well I like it!