Forums.NitroExpress.com

During World War I, the Remington Arms company was heavily engaged in military rifle manufacture, first with the British designed P-14 Enfield in caliber .303, and then with the American Model of 1917, the same rifle modified to fire the .30-‘06 Springfield cartridge.After the war, Remington introduced a slightly modified version of the 1917 rifle as a sporting rifle.

Over the years, until World War II, Remington continued modifying the basic 1917 action, until it arrived at the Model 720, the most sophisticated of all Remington versions of the military rifle. At the same time, Winchester developed rifles based on the 1903 Springfield military rifle, first the Model 54, and the the Model 70.

After the war, Remington dropped the 720 in favor of an entirely new rifle, created by designer Mike Walker. The purpose behind the design was to create a new rifle which combined maximum ease and economy of production with maximum accuracy potential. The design was manufactured in two versions, a “standard” (.30-‘06 length) version called the 721, and a shorter version, designed to accomodate a new cartridge, also developed by Mike Walker, called the .222 Remington.

Mike Walker was first and foremost a bench rest shooter, and his design reflects the state of the art knowledge gained in the bench rest community with reference to the ultimate in accuracy. He succeeded admirably in achieving the two goals set for him by Remington, and in the single shot version of the 722 called the 40-X he produced a rifle which would rule the bench rest world until the advent of even more sophisticated custom made actions.

The 722 was not designed with the big game hunter in mind. The calibers it was offered in, .222 Remington, .222 Remington Magnum, .223 Remington, .243 Winchester, .244 Remington, .257 Roberts, .300 Savage, .308 Winchester were overwhelmingly varmint or benchrest calibers. They were cheap, popular and extremely accurate. Comparatively few .222 Magnum and .243 rifles were sold.

The 721, available in .264 Winchester Magnum, .270 Winchester, .280 Remington, and .30-‘06.

The engineering innovations of the new desgn were many. The receiver was cylindrical in shape and lacked a recoil lug, which was manufactured separately and sandwiched between the receiver and the barrel. To preserve maximum stiffness, minimum amounts of metal were removed from the loading port and the magazine well.

The round action was ideal for glass bedding. The breeching sustem included a bolt head which protruded into a counterbored breech, maximizing protection from escaping gas resulting from a pierced primer or case head separation. However, this safety feature was gained at a price. The cartridge case protrudes further from the chamber than either that of the Mauser or even the Springfield, with its conical breech design.

The counterbored breech also required the use of an extractor which was fitted inside the bolt face and relied on a tiny projection to achieve purchase with the cartridge case. The clearance between the bolt and the recessed breech is very tight, in the range of .010", which serves admirably to seal off gas, but also makes the action susceptible to jams as a result of unburned grains of powder, primer fragments or other trash entrapped in the counterbore. The bolt face is also subject to obturation, which means that under situations of high pressure, the bolt head can expand to meet the breech couterbore and lock the bolt firmly in place. Neither of these factors is present in a Mauser breeched action.

To ease manufacture further, the bolt is manufactured in five parts, which are then press fit or brazed together. This is a satisfactory solution in a bench rest or varmint rifle, but problematical in a big game rifle, since failure of any of these joints could have disastrous consequences.

The bolt handle presents difficulties, not because of inherent lack of strength of design, but because of manufacturing priorities. If sufficient brazing material is used to insure a positive connection between the bolt handle (which also incorporates the extracting cam), then it is not unlikely that some of the brazing material will be extruded outside the joint. This causes a cosmetic problem, because the brazing material will not blue, creating an unsightly contrast to the remainder of the blued portion of the bolt. Consequently, to prevent this extrusion, at least in the past, sufficient brazing material to insure a robust joint was not used, and in some instances bolt handles have been known to separate from the bolt body.

Because of the design of the bolt and extractor, the Remington action is what is known as a push feed type, which means that once the cartridge is stripped from the magazine, it is not controlled by the bolt and the extractor engages only after the cartridge is fully seated in the chamber. This is in direct contrast with the Mauser design, which feeds the cartridge out of the magazine and directly into the extractor, thus controlling the cartridge all the way through the cycle of the action.

The design of the safety on the 721-722 rifle reflects its bench rest heritage. Bench rest and target rifles generally do not need an operative safety, since the rifle is loaded only under controlled conditions, pointing down range at a target. The safety in the Remington rifle is incorporated in the trigger, which is certainly sufficient for bench rest, varmint or target shooting use, but is not optimum for the hunting field. The Mauser, Enfield, and Springfield and the Springfield’s commercial descendants, the Model 54 and Model 70 Winchester, all use cocking piece safeties, which positively lock the cocking piece and prevent the rifle from firing, no matter what is done to the trigger.

The Remington 721-722 rifle series was followed by a slightly upgraded version, the 725 and ultimately the 700 series, which featured a swept back bolt handle, a hinged magazine floorplate and other cosmetic improvements, but which remained in all other respects identical to its predecessors.

To sum up, the Remington design has features which are ideal for the protected environment of the bench rest, varmint hunting, and target shooting world, but are of questionable value or downright negatives in the big game hunting field, features which are not present in the various Mauser designs or their offspring, such as the Model 70 Winchester.

For instance, the Remington round action, which offers so much stiffness in its single shot version, loses out to the Model 70 action in stiffness, when the cut for the magazine is made. Model 70 actions, both early and new, far outnumber 40-X repeater actions on the firing line in high power rifle competition. Only in long range competition, where the magazine is not required, does the 40-X excell.

Moreover, although the latest version of the Model 70 does not have controlled feed and also incorporates an assembled bolt, there are differences. The Model 70 uses an extractor, which, although it is not a claw extractor like that of the Mauser 98, is also a Mauser design and is wide enough to achieve a substantial purchase on the cartridge case. Also, the method used to attach the bolt handle to the Model 70 bolt assures that under no circumstances could the joint, which is both press fit and brazed, fail. The latest version Model 70 Classic features both a Mauser style extractor and controlled feed..

In my opinion, the big game rifle, and particularly the rifle used to hunt dangerous game, should share with the military rifle the indespensible qualities of reliability, robustness, safety, accuracy and ergonomic design. In the case of the Remington rifle, I feel that some of these qualities have slighted in the interest of ease and economy of manufacture.

As the foregoing comments have shown, there are shooters who have used the Model 700 Remington for years, with no adverse experiences. My mother drove an automobile all of her life without ever wearing a seat belt, and died in her bed at an advanced age, having never been involved in an automobile accident. I hardly think that her experience is a valid argument for not wearing a seat belt.